In light of Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional, Wisconsin’s attorney general, J. B. Van Hollen, has declared the Badger State free of any obligations imposed by the law. “Judge Vinson declared the health care law void and stated in his decision that a declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction,” Hollen says in a statement. “This means that, for Wisconsin, the federal health care law is dead — unless and until it is revived by an appellate court.”
Steve Means, a senior official in Hollen’s office, tells NRO that the ruling “effectively takes the health-care-reform bill off of the books.” He adds, “At a practical level it will really be up to the governor and his cabinet to determine what they will do in terms of day-to-day activities.”
As an example, Means offers Obamacare’s stipulation that states maintain their eligibility levels for Medicaid. “Presumably, now that that requirement is no longer in effect, the state could change its eligibility levels and still be within federal law,” Means reasons.
At the same time, the threat remains that the appellate or Supreme Court will reverse the ruling, putting the burden back on states’ shoulders. If that happens, Hollen says he hopes the federal government will give states more time to comply with the regulations. Nonetheless, he maintains, “We’re hopeful that the Supreme Court will affirm the Florida ruling.”
---"“We’re hopeful that the Supreme Court will affirm the Florida ruling.”"----
"We" better be praying daily that Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Flipper don't have any sudden "accidents" or "bad health."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHeh - no "affirming" the ruling if the administration just ignores the court and presses ahead anyway instead of appealing...
"John Marshall has his ruling; now let him enforce it."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf I am a Dem congressional Rep who won in 2006 or 2008 who looked at spending the rest of my life in congress, and who planned on a vote for Obamacare as the first of many transformational votes that would ensure my seat and my party holding my seat forever, only to have the Supreme Court strike the whole thing down after having lost my re-election in 2010... Well I would not be happy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere seems to be an increasing incidence of states taking the initiative on national issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf even half of the states that have joined the suit follow Wisconsin's lead, the Obama administration will have to appeal. His party's governors, senators, and respresentatives in California, New York, Massachusetts, and elsewhere will make him do it in order to stop the rapid migration of businesses from their states to the ones that ignore Obamacare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat if they gave an Act and nobody showed up?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusebmp: I think that's a good thing. States' rights have certainly diminished over time. It's good for all of us if the states' policies vary enough that that there is meaningful competition for businesses and people. I know a lot of us boomers in California are considering cashing out and moving to more rational states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@bmp
And ain't it grand? God Bless federalism and the will of the Founding Fathers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow! I am not used to States talking tough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Leveut: Fortunately, even in the event of a bout of "bad health" for one of the Justices, inertia works in our favor. Obamacare, the law, has now been officially overturned; the Supreme Court will need 5 full votes in favor of overturning that overturning. In other words, in the event of a 4-4 tie follwing an "accident," Obamacare remains garbage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf I have it right, the appellate court for this decision will be the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta.
This is a pretty conservative court, and likely to uphold the decision. So, I've no doubt this decision is going all the way to the Supreme Court of the US. The Supreme Court may well uphold the decision too, as it's been rethinking the Commerce Clause for about the last decade.
I'll be interested to see whether The Won, faced with a defeat in the Supreme Court, will simply shrug and go ahead with ObamaCare anyway. In the age of "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.", I think he might just go for it. Lord knows, he's been tone-deaf enough for the last couple of years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@bmp: "There seems to be an increasing incidence of states taking the initiative on national issues."
I'll try a rewording: There seems to be an increasing incidence of a federal government taking the initiative on state and local issues.
The D's have been traveling down this road for far too long. Good to see Mr Van Hollen act in accordance with the law and in the better interest of the (my) state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo the previous commenters:
Judge Vinson's decision is legally binding in the State of Florida only. Whatever portions of the decision that are upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will be binding in the 11th Circuit (Fla, Ga, and Ala) only. If (as is likely) the US Supreme Court takes an appeal from the 11th Circuit, whatever the Supreme Court upholds will apply to the entire country.
As I've noted in previous postings, other courts can use the Vinson decision as persuasive authority, but it is not binding authority. Moreover, no state executive agency (such as the Wisconsin AG) can declare a federal law ineffective in his or her state by executive fiat.
As for why the Obama Administration hasn't simply given up based on Judge Vinson's decision, please recall the Bush Administration's approach to the cases involving the Guantanamo detainees--they didn't concede until the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled against their position. I don't note this to say that Bush was wrong so Obama has his chance to be wrong; it's simply a matter of how our government works.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, it's appropriate that we see a realignment of "free states" and "slave sates."
Obviously, the slave states are beholden to their plantation masters in the Big House in Washington while the free states, like Wisconsin (Go Packers!), are in charge of their own destinies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would this federal district court decision not be binding on all parties (states in this case) even those outside of Florida? If Vinson's ruling is not binding on the 25 other states, including Wisconsin, they would not have been able to file there for injunctive relief in the first place. Must a multi-state suit be filed directly in and with the Supreme Court?
I'm just an engineer asking legal questions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama "John Roberts has his ruling, now let him enforce it" .... Congress - " President Obama has his law, now let him fund it".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin Moriarty:
The judgment is NOT legally binding in Florida only. It is binding on all of the parties to the action wherever they are.
For example, if you live in Florida but are an actual party to a federal case in a US District Court in Virginia, a judgment against you in that court is binding on you wherever you are, including at your home in Florida.
What is NOT binding as precedent on other federal courts is the legal reasoning used by Judge Vinson. Another judge in another federal district court can come to the opposite conclusion as to the commerce clause or severability in any other case which happens to raise those issues; he or she is not constrained by Judge Vinson's ruling.
This judgment is binding on the Department of HHS, the Treasury Department and the Department of Labor.
If they don't want to abide by it they need to file a motion to suspend the declaratory relief pending a decision by an appellate court.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf a federal law is unconstitutional in one state, it is unconstitutional in 50 states. Or 57 states if you are a progressive president. Roger Vinson is a federal judge, and his rulings have national application until and unless overturned by a higher court.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll the states in the Union that are going bankrupt could certainly save money by avoiding any further expense of arbitration and hearings by calling for Judge Vinson or any other judge for that matter and demand full disclosure by Soetoro. I think Henry Hudson should be the one to do it in Virginia since he was the first judge to come out against Obamacare as a violation of the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe are not a dictatorship, but a federation of states. That's why they call them Governor's. And Attorney GENERALS. Sounds authoritative doesn't it. That's because it is. The constituition was written in a way that required the Federal government to be limited. Exceeding their authority would bring a backlash from the states. The Feds need to be taught a lesson once and for all. Their power grab has been going on for several decades. A major law reform needs to take place andthrow out Federal legal abuses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse