Judge Vinson Clarifies Florida Ruling, Entire Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

In a harshly worded opinion, Judge Roger Vinson, the Florida federal judge who struck down the entire health care law in January, gave the Obama administration seven days from today to appeal his ruling with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Vinson issued the 20 page ruling today after the Obama administration had asked him to clarify his original opinion and tell the government whether his ruling was meant to strike down provisions of the law currently in effect.

While I believe that my order was as clear and unambiguous as it could be,” Vinson wrote, “it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood its import.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...ire-health-care-law-is-unconstitutional.html”

Click to expand...

DontDoIt said:

Link didn't work for me.

Click to expand...

He reiterated his finding that the Congress exceeded its authority when it passed the individual mandate and said that because the mandate was unseverable from the rest of the Act the entire legislation was void. He said that his order applied to all parts of the law, including those provisions currently in effect.

Click to expand...

Whovian said:

try this one...

Judge Vinson Clarifies Florida Ruling, Maintains That Entire Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional - Political Punch

Click to expand...

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.”

Click to expand...

In its “motion to clarify,” the White House claimed that delay was needed because Vinson’s ruling “required careful analysis” before the government could evaluate its “potential impact” on implementation of Obamacare. Vinson notes (citing this article from the Washington Post) that “this seems contrary to media reports that the White House declared within hours after entry of my order that ‘implementation will proceed apace’ regardless of the ruling.”

Click to expand...