The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Chris_ on February 03, 2011, 10:15:49 AM
-
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/kayaktn/Obamacare_Cartoon.jpg)
The Senate voted against repealing the health care law Wednesday.
Senate Republicans, still a minority, knew the repeal had no chance of making it through the Senate, but were determined to show constituents that they intended to follow through with the campaign promise they made during midterm elections, to “repeal and replace” the law. The vote fell largely along party lines, 51-47.
Republicans in the Senate fall 13 short of the 60 needed to break a filibuster.
KKTV (http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/Senate_Votes_Against_Repealing_Health_Care_Law_115183319.html)
-
Doesn't matter anyway. It's been ruled unconstitutional and can't be put into play until a higher court overturns it.
-
Doesn't matter anyway. It's been ruled unconstitutional and can't be put into play until a higher court overturns it.
The Judges ruling was kind of confusing. He didn't issue an injunction to prevent HCR from going forward, but did rule it unconstitutional. As far as I understand it, implementation can go forward pending further appeals.
-
Anybody have a vote breakdown?
-
It was strictly down party line. No one defected either way.
And the reason there was no injunction was it was not necessary. Once the mandate was ruled unconstitutional, the rest of the law becomes void as well, and none of it can be implemented unless it gets overturned.
-
And now the Dems are on record voting against the Constitution.
-
The Republicans need to keep bringing this up over and over until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional.
-
The Republicans need to keep bringing this up over and over until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional.
HCR was voided by Judge Vinson. Unless a higher court reinstates the law it is already "repealed".
-
The Judges ruling was kind of confusing. He didn't issue an injunction to prevent HCR from going forward, but did rule it unconstitutional. As far as I understand it, implementation can go forward pending further appeals.
Hi,
What I understood from Hannity radio show the judge said that the federal government must comply with his ruling, there is no need for an injunction as essentially there is no law unless he is over ruled by a higher court. Hannity said the way he worded it, including quoting Obama regarding mandates was brilliant.
If I understood it, the federal government must comply, and if they do not, then likely he would quickly issue an injunction.
regards,
5412
-
Hi,
What I understood from Hannity radio show the judge said that the federal government must comply with his ruling, there is no need for an injunction as essentially there is no law unless he is over ruled by a higher court. Hannity said the way he worded it, including quoting Obama regarding mandates was brilliant.
If I understood it, the federal government must comply, and if they do not, then likely he would quickly issue an injunction.
regards,
5412
As far as I can tell ObamaCare is going full steam ahead. They are still giving out waivers to certain provisions and those would not be needed if the feds weren't planning on going ahead with their plans.
-
The Judges ruling was kind of confusing. He didn't issue an injunction to prevent HCR from going forward, but did rule it unconstitutional. As far as I understand it, implementation can go forward pending further appeals.
Correct.
-
My understanding, from listening to Rush, is it is effectively "dead" until challenged.
-
As far as I can tell ObamaCare is going full steam ahead. They are still giving out waivers to certain provisions and those would not be needed if the feds weren't planning on going ahead with their plans.
Yes they are, which is contempt of court.
And speaking of contempt of court... (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html)
-
Wisconsin's AG has already said that Wisconsin will not implement any state-level regs for Obamacare after the ruling:
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/02/wisconsin-leads-the-charge-for-death-of-obamacare/
And he's right to do so. Not just because the law has been voided--it's now Sebelius' onus to have the decision reversed, if she can do so--but why in the world should the states spend precious tax dollars on implementing a law whose continuing existence is in serious doubt?
I doubt Wisconsin will be the only state to refuse to comply.
Also, as Mark Levin has pointed out (and as Tank here surely knows), any one state party to the suit has standing to seek a contempt order if Obama's politburo is continuing regulatory implementation and enforcement (not just writing regs; the feds can easily argue that they ought to continue writing regs in case the law is finally upheld; but enforcement, now, that's where they'd have to stop).
-
The Judges ruling was kind of confusing. He didn't issue an injunction to prevent HCR from going forward, but did rule it unconstitutional. As far as I understand it, implementation can go forward pending further appeals.
Yes and no. He ruled it void, as in nonexistent. Therefore, legally, there is nothing to implement.
-
the voters will take out the trash in 012