Obama administration appeals healthcare ruling!:(Ignores Judges order to Stop implimentation!)

The Obama administration on Tuesday appealed a judge's ruling in Florida that struck down its landmark healthcare overhaul law as unconstitutional because it required Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty. President Barack Obama's Justice Department filed its notice of appeal and the case will go to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta. The fight over the law is expected to reach the Supreme Court.

Healthcare reform is the signature of Obama's domestic policy and the administration has said it would continue to implement the law because halting it would cause irreparable harm.

The administration will likely seek an expedited hearing on the case but Charles Shanor, a law professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said it would still be with the 11th Circuit for months before a ruling was issued. "I just don't see the court writing an overnight opinion in a matter that's of such concern to the public," Shanor said, adding that the 11th Circuit was viewed as "moderate" when compared to other appellate courts.

Source: www.reuters.com...

NOTE: This story is related to this one thread-when the Judge issued his order etc:
Judge to Prez: You Have 1 Week to Save Obamacare!:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Okay Judge, Screw YOU! I can't believe the arrogance of this Putz Obama. No respect of the rule of law what-so-ever!

What makes the Obama Administration expects or the best determiners of keeping the implimentation of the program going-After it was ruled Unconstitutional!!!!

If this was Bush... Riots in the streets. Well, you know what... you just might see it here.

I hope the courts slaps him so hard with their decision he'll be ashamed to show his face for months!!

I hope the courts continue to follow the Constitution on this matter.

It may be our only hope.

The blatant disrespect for the laws and traditions and respect for the best of what America was once will not stop on it's own. You are seeing a coup in slow motion, in plain sight, a coup that's mostly completed.
We need not be herded onto any cattle cars, they will contol your every move, your every breath your every option in your own home, up until they come to evict you naked, starving and alone for non-payment of their accumulated created and largely fictitious debt.
The greatest part of the debt could be handled if those that have profited enormously for decades at the publics expense would just take a profit holiday, but NOOoooo!

reply to post by anon72


This is REALLY REALLY interesting.

An Appeal is NOT a new trial it is a review of the old trial to determine if a mistake was made by the lower court.

....Depending on the particular legal rules that apply to each circumstance, a party to a court case who is unhappy with the result might be able to challenge that result in an appellate court on specific grounds. These grounds typically could include errors of law, fact, or procedure (in the United States, due process)....

Types of appeal

There are a number of appeal actions, their differences being potentially confusing, thus bearing some explanation. Three of the most common are an appeal to which the defendant has as a right, a writ of certiorari and a writ of habeas corpus.

An appeal to which the defendant has a right cannot be abridged by the court which is, by designation of its jurisdiction, obligated to hear the appeal. In such an appeal, the appellant feels that some error has been made in his trial, necessitating an appeal. A matter of importance is the basis on which such an appeal might be filed: generally appeals as a matter of right may only address issues which were originally raised in trial (as evidenced by documentation in the official record). Any issue not raised in the original trial may not be considered on appeal and will be considered estoppel. A convenient test for whether a petition is likely to succeed on the grounds of error is confirming that (1) a mistake was indeed made (2) an objection to that mistake was presented by counsel and (3) that mistake negatively affected the defendant’s trial.

A writ of certiorari, otherwise know as simply as cert, is an order by a higher court directing a lower court to send record of a case for review, and is the next logical step in post-trial procedure. While states may have similar processes, a writ of cert is usually only issued, in the United States, by the Supreme Court, although some states retain this procedure. Unlike the aforementioned appeal, a writ of cert is not a matter of right. A writ of cert will have to be petitioned for, the higher court issuing such writs on limited bases according to constraints such as time. In another sense, a writ of cert is like an appeal in its constraints; it too may only seek relief on grounds raised in the original trial.

A writ of habeas corpus is the last opportunity for the defendant to find relief against his guilty conviction. Habeas corpus may be pursued if a defendant is unsatisfied with the outcome of his appeal and has been refused (or did not pursue) a writ of cert, at which point he may petition one of several courts for a writ of habeas corpus. Again, these are granted at the discretion of the court and require a petition. Like appeals or writs of cert, a writ of habeas corpus may overturn a defendant's guilty conviction by finding some error in the original trial. The major difference is that writs of habeas corpus may, and often, focus on issues that lay outside the original premises of the trial, i.e., issues that could not be raised by appeal or writs of cert. These often fall in two logical categories: (1) that the trial lawyer was ineffectual or incompetent or (2) that some constitutional right has been violated.... en.wikipedia.org...

I was not aware of this until I actually went through an appeal.

I guess a mistake was made, the judge was not in the pocket of the Obama Admin.

I'm jut trying to figure out the logic here. Obamacare has NOT been implemented yet.

But if it doesn't pass, it'll cause irreputable harm? To whom? What harm, where?

I'm already saving up just to pay the damned fine, because the ONLY way I'll be signing up for Obamacare is at gun point!

reply to post by beezzer


They have already started implimenting and administering some of it in certain areas of the country.

They believe the more they get started before the Supremes deem it unlawful the harder it will be to dismantel and thus have to be considered in any revamping etc.

From what I understand.

hell, they even state they are continuing to impliment it.

reply to post by anon72

hell, they even state they are continuing to impliment it.

Yes.

But not for McDonalds. They along with a list of other corporate entities have pleaded to 'opt out', and were given an Obama-waiver forthwith.

reply to post by anon72


I really don't understand your rant here.

The Judge WANTED Obama to appeal the decision...he said he would stay his ruling IF Obama appealed the decision.

Obama is doing EXACTLY what the Judge asked him to do.


So what exactly are you all upset about???

Originally posted by beezzer
I'm jut trying to figure out the logic here. Obamacare has NOT been implemented yet.

But if it doesn't pass, it'll cause irreputable harm? To whom? What harm, where?

I'm already saving up just to pay the damned fine, because the ONLY way I'll be signing up for Obamacare is at gun point!

You do understand there is no "Obamacare" to "sign up for"....RIGHT? Saying so just sounds completely ignorant.

Do you have health insurance already??? If so, then you are "signed up for Obamacare" already.

If you don't have health insurance...fine, pay the fine...and still not have health insurance....that will show em

reply to post by MindSpin


That Obama is continuing the implimentation of the programs.

Vinson said he had expected the government to ask for a stay of his ruling. “It was not expected,” he wrote in his opinion Thursday, “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.’”

From the orginal post about the judges ruling. the link is in the OP.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by anon72

 

hell, they even state they are continuing to impliment it.

Yes.

But not for McDonalds. They along with a list of other corporate entities have pleaded to 'opt out', and were given an Obama-waiver forthwith.

Please go read my thread on the Waivers...and stop with your ignorant propaganda.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The Waivers are not to "opt-out" of anything...they are an extension to comply with minimum standards of offered care so these companies can continue to offer their "mini-med" plans. Any company that offers mini-meds can get a waiver...many organizations that are most likely not Obama supporters have waivers, such as Catholic charitites. It's all in my thread...go read it, and show me where I am wrong on any of it...please. Or, just bury your head and continue on with the mis-information...your choice.

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by MindSpin

 

That Obama is continuing the implimentation of the programs.

Vinson said he had expected the government to ask for a stay of his ruling. “It was not expected,” he wrote in his opinion Thursday, “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.’”

From the orginal post about the judges ruling. the link is in the OP.

That one judge can't overturn or stop law...he does not have the authority to do that. Other courts of the same authority had previously declared it Constitutional...and this one said no. The law doesn't work that way, if it did any lower court could declare any existing law "unconstitutional" and say that people don't have to follow it until the Supreme Court gets around to hearing it...that would create chaos. The Law of the Land is the LAW until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

All that ruling means is that it needs to be appealed up to the Supreme Court, everyone knows that...you are just trying to spread more propaganda.


Plus, you are attempting to mislead people (again) with your thread title. It is implying that by Obama appealing this ruling, that he is ignoring the judges order to stop implementation. Which is 100% FALSE. The judge had already ordered a stay of his decision last thursday for 7 days and told Obama to appeal before then and he would make the stay permanent until the ruling is appealed. Obama has appealed within the 7 days and the ruling is stayed.

Sorry...but your mis-leading tactics are weak and disgusting.

reply to post by MindSpin


Here in Idaho we have nullified your glorious leaders healthcare and have our own set of rules. Curious did you have anything of intelligence to add to this post, or are you just a propaganda troll?

reply to post by MindSpin



I did and you do a pretty good job with your presentation etc. Except that your starting point is all wrong. Here is the real reason for the Waivers. UNION paybacks

The real snow job in D.C.: Obamacare waivers skyrocket to 729 + 4 states; 4 new SEIU waiver winners
michellemalkin.com...

Now, instead of trying to derail my thread Troll, I posted the same thing at your thread. take it over there please.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7bfb0c0f167.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by allprowolfy
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Here in Idaho we have nullified your glorious leaders healthcare and have our own set of rules. Curious did you have anything of intelligence to add to this post, or are you just a propaganda troll?

Question...which law overrides the other...State or Federal???


Just wondering how brainwashed the Republicans in Idaho have you.

This topic is kinda irritating
Once the spirit of the law has been breached, and accepted or tolerated, anything else can be justified as an implicit stare decisis. Accepting the first fraud was the key, the cats now out, at least to the officers of the court. The intent here is to have any critic be drawn off into a fratal of interpretations and consideration and suppositions and wander away from the point that the ptb have hijacked not only the court for thir own purposes they've also been allowed to serve as final authority for redefinition of words that already had clear definitions. Anyone notice that tyranny is the selective use of the laws? Once you appoint a lawless class there is no polite way back, and no polite future either.
No nation has resolved this condition passively, and never will.
Anyone having been a pro se / pro per litigant knows how the courts intentionally subvert the outsider at every turn. The system revolves around running the clock with options til one party runs out of money or power, that is all.
Enjoy your 'republic'

reply to post by MindSpin

If you don't have health insurance...fine, pay the fine...and still not have health insurance....that will show em

You are missing the POINT. The fine is a LOT cheaper than having to get insurance if you are self employed. When I ran out of money ten years ago I was paying $600/mo or $7,200 when you earn $25,000 that is a lot of money.

reply to post by MindSpin

Question...which law overrides the other...State or Federal???

I would guess it would depend on which one is constitutional, if either is.

That part is up to the courts. There are plenty of laws struck down as unconstitutional by lower courts that never make it to the US Supreme Court.

Does anyone really find this surprising?
Lord Obama and the Fed truly believe that they are above the law.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by MindSpin

 

If you don't have health insurance...fine, pay the fine...and still not have health insurance....that will show em

You are missing the POINT. The fine is a LOT cheaper than having to get insurance if you are self employed. When I ran out of money ten years ago I was paying $600/mo or $7,200 when you earn $25,000 that is a lot of money.

And you are missing the point that there will be new state run exchanges that will offer health insurance to the self employed or anyone that doesn't get it through their work at cheaper rates...comparable to group rates that employers get.

You are trying to compare current state with what will be a new system. Like I said...pay the fine to show your disgust over the law...I really don't think you will when you realize that you can buy insurance for the same or lower price.