Tag Archives: Judge Roger Vinson

Judge has harsh words for Obama Administration – gives them 7 days to appeal

A lawless Obama Administration gets some “clarification” in no uncertain terms.  Some excerpts below and a link for the entire order at the bottom:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION

Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through
Attorney General Pam Bondi, et al.; Plaintiffs

vs

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.;Defendants

. . . . “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.”  If it were otherwise, a federal court’s declaratory judgment would serve “no useful purpose as a final determination of rights.” For the
defendants to suggest that they were entitled (or that in the weeks after my order was issued they thought they might be entitled) to basically ignore my declaratory judgment until “after appellate review is exhausted” is unsupported in the law.

…..

To the extent that the defendants [Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, et al] 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.”

…..

The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be.

It is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward.

And yet, it has been more than one month from the entry of my order and judgment and still the defendants have not filed their notice of appeal.

Therefore, the defendants’ motion to clarify (doc. 156) is GRANTED, as set forth above. To the extent that motion is construed as a motion to stay, it is also GRANTED, and the summary declaratory judgment entered in this case is STAYED pending appeal, conditioned upon the defendants filing their notice of appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review.

So, in other words, the government has 7 days to file a notice of appeal requesting an expedited hearing or they must stop implementing Obamacare.  Obamacare is unconstitutional.  Obamacare is void.  What I am not sure of is whether this applies to all states or only the 26 states that are parties to this lawsuit.

Don’t you know it just chaps this alleged president that he is not the ruler of all things.  But we’ll see if he tries to defy the ruling even at this point.

To see complete text of the 20 page order, click here.

Posted:  03.03.11

Leave a comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Courts, politics, President Barack Obama, Uncategorized

Levin: Obama administration “lawless” in leading opposition to the U. S. Constitution

One U. S. District Court Judge, Judge Martin Feldman, has already declared the Obama Administration in Contempt of Court in the Gulf Drilling Moratorium in an Order dated February 2, 2011.

Are they now going to defy another Federal Judge, Judge Vinson, by continuing to implement an unconstitutional law, Obamacare.

Mark Levin on Wednesday:

Barack Obama today, the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of HHS today, are conducting themselves in a lawless fashion. It is they, it is they who are leading opposition to the United States Constitution.

… Look at Page 75 (of the ruling). The judge said, “This is a declaratory judgment,” finding the entire statute unconstitutional, (saying in effect) “I don’t have to issue an injunction. The government can’t impose an unconstitutional statute on the nation.”

… What will the media in our country do when a President of the United States intentionally and knowingly refuses to comply with a court order? Whether it’s civil rights in the 1960s, whether it’s anything else, does this not remind you of Watergate in a sense if the Executive Branch does not comply with this federal judge? Do we not have a constitutional crisis if the Executive Branch refuses to comply with a Judicial Branch order?

… (the Executive Branch’s) only relief is to appeal it. You must cease and desist from further attempts to implement it. But I guarantee you, ladies and gentlemen, that the media in this country, which would call for the impeachment of a Republican president who openly defied a federal court order, and in fact did, will support this president because they believe in Obamacare and they want the result changed.

…..

… there is no Obamacare law officially. It’s been voided.

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/02/04/mark-levin-barack-obama-the-attorney-general-the-secretary-of-hhs-are-conducting-themselves-in-a-lawless-fashion/

I hope these judges have good security.  One U. S. District Court Judge has already been gunned down.

Posted:  02.04.11

2 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Courts, Law, politics

Final Declaratory Judgment declaring Obamacare unconstitutional (exact text)

Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through
Attorney General Pam Bondi, et al.;
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
FINAL SUMMARY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
For all the reasons stated in the Order Granting Summary Judgment entered
contemporaneously herewith, and in accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), it is hereby

DECLARED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010), is unconstitutional.

DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2011.
/s/ Roger Vinson
ROGER VINSON
Senior United States District Judge

Leave a comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Courts, health care, politics, President Barack Obama, Uncategorized

Obamacare ruled unconstitutional by federal judge in Florida (exact wording linked)

Federal District Court Judge for the Northern District of Florida Roger Vinson rules Obamacare is unconstitutional and in favor of the 26 states that sued to block it.  Our great new Attorney General, Pam Bondi, passionately represented the State of Florida.  (She just said on Greta that there are two other states, Virginia and Oklahoma, who had separate lawsuits, making a total of 28 states suing.)

Pam Bondi, Attorney General, State of Florida

Judge Vinson says:

“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate,” Vinson wrote in his 78-page ruling. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”

I believe he is saying the entire law is unconstitutional.  I am looking for more on his wording.

Judge Roger Vinson

Bio:  On the recommendation of U.S. Senator Paula Hawkins, Vinson was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on September 9, 1983 to a seat vacated by Lynn Higby as Higby assumed senior status. Vinson was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 4, 1983 on a senate vote and received commission on October 5, 1983. Vinson served as the chief judge from 1997 to 2004 before later assuming senior status on March 31, 2005.

U. S. Naval Academy, Lieutenant, aviator

Here we go: Click here for Full Order of Summary Judgment signed by Judge Vinson 01.31.11.

Excerpt:

“In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.

For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second
Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief…..

(There’s some additional wording in here.  See document)

In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.

DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2011.

/s/ Roger Vinson
ROGER VINSON
Senior United States District Judge
Case No.:  3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT

Posted:  01.31.11

UPDATE:  Even though the Court declined to enter an injunction, his ruling does, in fact, enjoin the government from further implementing Obamacare:

“It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the
federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.

(“Declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”)

There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.”

His ruling declaring the law unconstitutional is a defacto injunction.  (This is according to Mark Levin and I believe he is right about this.  It’s pretty clear that’s how it reads.)  The judge struck down the entire law so there is no law to implement.  We’ll see.

So will the Obama administration adhere to the judge and cease implementation of the law until the Supreme Court can rule or defy the judicial branch of government?   Right now they are saying this ruling does not affect the implementation of the law.  The Court may have to further clarify this.

Update:  01.31.11

8 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, health care, politics