Latest Headlines
- Cottage Hill Man Charged With Threatening To Kill Local Magistrate
- Five WaWa Stores In The Works For Escambia County. Here’s The List.
- Scattered Storms Likely Again Today
- Motorcyclist Critical After Jacks Branch Road Crash
- FDOT Plans Traffic Shift Thursday In Century Highway 29 Construction Zone
- Molino Man Charged With Throwing Object, Breaking Windshield Of Passing Car
- North Escambia Athletes Place In USA Volleyball Beach National Championships
- Santa Rosa Sheriff Issues Contractor Fraud Alert After Arrest
- Escambia Man Gets 10 Years On Firearms And Financial Racketeering Charges
- New Name, Same Fish: Largemouth Bass Are Now Florida Bass
Federal Judge: Feds Must Move Fast On Health Care Appeal
March 3, 2011
A Pensacola federal judge criticized the government Thursday for moving forward with the federal health care law despite his ruling against it, but he put a stay on his own order to give the government a week to appeal.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in essence ordered the government to get that appeal moving quickly – saying the matter was of such consequence it should be fast tracked. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice said the government will appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, but didn’t say when.
Vinson also said he had thought his order finding the massive federal health care law was easy to understand: he ruled that it violates the constitution. And the tone of his “clarifying” order was decidedly perturbed that the Obama Administration sought a clarification.
The administration had noted that the main part of the law that was found unconstitutional by Vinson – the individual mandate for buying health insurance – doesn’t go into effect until 2014, by which time the question of its constitutionality is likely to have been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Vinson said in his clarification that he had believed the federal government would stop implementation after his ruling.
“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,’” Vinson wrote.
Vinson, a Reagan appointee who sits in Pensacola, said he now expected the government would ask for a stay of his order pending an appeal, but said there was no need to wait for the administration to ask. Vinson went ahead and put the order on hold – but with the condition that the government get moving and file an appeal within a week. The matter is of such import, and in such doubt, that it is in everyone’s interest to get the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court, he said.
“The Act seeks to comprehensively reform and regulate more than one-sixth of the national economy,” Vinson wrote. “It does so via several hundred statutory provisions and thousands of regulations that put myriad obligations and responsibilities on individuals, employers, and the states.
“It has generated considerable uncertainty while the constitutionality of the Act is being litigated in the courts,” Vinson continued. “The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be. 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.”
Vinson also acknowledged the government’s argument that ultimately, it would be hard to put the law in place without getting going on planning for its implementation. All the more reason for a swift appeal to get the matter settled, Vinson essentially said.
“We appreciate the court’s recognition of the enormous disruption that would have resulted if implementation of the Affordable Care Act was abruptly halted,” Justice Department spokesperson Tracy Schmaler said in a statement. “We welcome the court’s granting of a stay to allow the current programs and consumer protections, including tax credits to small business and millions of dollars in federal grants to help states with health care costs, to continue, pending our appeal in the Eleventh Circuit.”
The state of Florida was the lead plaintiff of 26 states challenging the law. One of the major concerns of the states is that the new law is expected to require the addition of large numbers people to the states’ Medicaid rolls. Most of the plaintiff attorneys general are also Republicans, and generally opposed to the Obama administration’s efforts to require people to buy health insurance.
The National Federation of Independent Business joined the states as a plaintiff.
“An expedited appeals process for this case is very good news for NFIB and the small-business community,” NFIB’s Florida director, Bill Herrle, said in a statement. “The government’s attempts to stymie the judicial process are simply prolonging the uncertainty surrounding the law and do a disservice to the states, small-business owners and individuals who are seeking resolution.”
While blasting the federal government for not following his initial order, and for slowing the case down, Vinson also wrote candidly about the lack of clear agreement on the legal nature of the case – saying that precisely because it is no slam dunk legally, it ought to continue to move up the legal chain.
“The individual mandate has raised some novel issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government about which reasonable and intelligent people (and reasonable and intelligent jurists) can disagree,” Vinson wrote. “Despite what partisans for or against the individual mandate might suggest, this litigation presents a question with some strong and compelling arguments on both sides.”
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who campaigned in part on continuing to pursue the lawsuit against the federal health care law, said she was pleased with Vinson’s reaffirmation of the unconstitutionality of the law, but said she was disappointed he was allowing the government to continue to implement the law pending the appeal.
“While we are disappointed that the stay was granted, we are satisfied that DOJ now has only seven days to file their appeal and seek expedited review or they will lose the stay,” Bondi said.
By David Royse
The News Service Florida
Comments
10 Responses to “Federal Judge: Feds Must Move Fast On Health Care Appeal”
I can see this mandatory insurance pre-requisite causing a lot of unnecessary deaths as illnesses will go untreated for fear of being fined for not having insurance.
REGARDING:
“Just wondering why everyone wants to completely get rid of the entire bill….what about making amendments to it??”
As I’m sure you noticed when you read the judge’s ruling, the federal government INSISTED it was all or nothing, the act had to be taken as a whole. In fact he pointed out early wording had the standard statement that any part found unconstitutional would not throw out the other parts. They removed that part because they knew the individual mandate was likely to be ruled unconstitutional and that the rest of the bill stood firmly on that illegal portion.
The judge also pointed out his ruling was in keeping with the previous rulings of the Supreme Court and without Constitutional amendment they ALONE have the power to overturn his ruling and that the legislature has the power to write a bill which WOULD be constitutional.
So far, they have refused to propose an alternative because they still insist on forcing all citizens to buy insurance. (He even included the fact that they had the power for those who had insurance but not the power to compel purchase of insurance.)
David for freedom not slavery
‘Is it possible for us all to consider that there are good parts to this healthcare plan? It happens to benefit college students greatly, because now we can stay on our parents insurance!’
It is not a government function under the Constitution.
The premium to risk equation is changed by staying on your parent’s insurance. Thus, premiums go up. This change is not free. It may seem like it if your parents are provided insurance by thier employer at no cost to them. But, somebody pays for it. Your own policy is and has been availible to you.
The more you know about it, the more you know that it is not good for the country. . The Obama people have the notion that they know what is better for you than you do. This bill will reduce the quality of health care and make health decisions for you. I don’t want that. I do not even agree that this bill ever had good intensions. Companies are slow to hire because of the increase in benefit cost.
There are no good parts. I have insurance and pay dearly for it, but it is the plan I want. The government is not your mother. Besides, all the officials that voted it through said that they personally would not want to be on this plan.
Ask not what your country can do for you, If you want to stay free.
Yes, we need health care reform, but not FORCED health care! We fought wars to stay free and now one president is determined to change that! There are better ways to reform health care than forcing peole to buy expensive insurance …that only benefits the insurance companies who are getting rich anyway! The insurance companies have had one of the largest, most expensive lobbies in Washington, D.C. for many years. How much did theycontribute to get this forced insurance passed?!!
Is it possible for us all to consider that there are good parts to this healthcare plan? It happens to benefit college students greatly, because now we can stay on our parents insurance!
Just wondering why everyone wants to completely get rid of the entire bill….what about making amendments to it??
Thank goodness we still have a very competent, honest, judge (Judge Roger Vinson) on the bench.
Has anyone looked at the stats of how many people already coverage? I have and you might be surprised to know that the majority of the people do have coverage who work. The ones that don’t are unemployed or illegally in our country. We should not have to pay for some one from another country who is not here legally. If they want the benefits of America then they need to become a citizen and earn it the way we all do who are citizens. The unemployed is a whole other story I do think they need help. But to make someone take coverage who is already with out income or very little income is plain out stupid! If I remember correctly most states have a insurance pool for those who can not get coverage and it is based on affordability. Maybe the Feds should be funding those programs and helping the needy thru a known means rather than trying to re-create the wheel if you will. Just saying a little common sense helps a lot. Think most of the politicians have been professional politicians so long they have lost touch with what reality is. Okay for now I will get off my soap box. LOL!
This administration is bound and determined to ram this massive health care bill through the federal courts with no regard that much of it may be un-constitutional and is opposed by a great majority of the american people.. Judge Vinson swore to support the constitution when came to the bench, and he should be commended to doing just that..
Here is a fairly simple question that I have yet to get an answer to, how can you force a person to pay for health care if they are out of work legitimately and they can’t even afford food for their table? It is a fairly simple question.