Tuesday, February 1, 2011

More White House Feigning Outrage at Judiciary

Well, back to the swampland of today's politicos
That passage, one official said, "does not in any way fit with a traditional Commerce Clause analysis."

The official added: "It's really frankly, as I can tell, a scare tactic, and it's not one that any lawyer of any ideological inclination would recognize."

The White House said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis.""
On the contrary, Mr. President, Vinson's ruling looks to be exactly based on a Constitutional analysis. That is the entire basis of the decision. What was arrived at without Constitutional analysis was the law itself.

Assistant to the President and Deputy Senior Adviser Stephanie Cutter wrote that the case "is a plain case of judicial overreaching."
"We don't believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts," she added."
First of all, what will ultimately be decided is irrelevant. The fact is that the law, in its entirety, has been ruled in violation of the constitution by a Federal judge and is therefore void of legal authority. While we are at Ms. Cutter, you would do well to keep in mind that words have meaning, and if you are unaware of their meaning you would do well not to use them. Judicial activism referes to a judge taking matters into his or her own hands and offering rulings that ignore the laws of the land. Ms. Cutter's contention on Judge Vinson's decision is nonsense. If she continues in this vein she makes herself to be someone utterly not worth hearing. The ruling may be inconvenient for Ms. Cutter's employer, but the ruling was based on the laws of the land, and we as a people and this president in particular are still governed by the rule of law.

At the same time, the president's Department of Justice released a statement decrying the ruling and announcing plans to appeal. It said it was considering whether it is necessary to seek a stay while the appeal is pending.
"We strongly disagree with the court's ruling today and continue to believe - as other federal courts have found - that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," it said. "This is one of a number of cases pending before courts around the country, including several that the government has won in the district courts that are now before the courts of appeals. There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal."
Meanwhile it is null and void, and the Department of Justice would do well to advise the White House to stop attempting to implement the law until such a time, if ever, that it is ruled constitutionally valid by a higher court. The 'Affordable Care Act' - what a joke.  This thing is going to bury us in debt.  Anyway, newly selected House Speaker John Boehner had a different view than the Obama Department of Justice:
"Today's decision affirms the view, held by most of the states and a majority of the American people that the federal government should not be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and punishing you if you don't,"
Exactly right. Backing up his words, the House has voted to repeal the measure.

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint added:
"ObamaCare is clearly unconstitutional, courts continue to rule against it, and Americans sent a clear message in November to repeal it. Today, all Republican senators have united to repeal this government takeover of health care. I will work with other Republicans to have a vote to repeal Obamacare as soon as possible."

No comments:

Post a Comment