[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Toward the end of my last post analyzing Judge Vinson’s excellent decision striking down the entirety of Obamacare, I wrote the following to explain why there was no injunction:
[T]he court reasoned that a judgment declaring the law to be unconstitutional is sufficient relief to the plaintiffs because “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.” (internal quotation marks removed.) In other words, he felt that the Federal Government would try to obey the law without the court formally ordering its obedience. But believe you me, if the Obama administration ignores this ruling, the court can and certainly will revisit the matter and issue an injunction.
Well, it didn’t take long. Via the Daily Caller:
“We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld,” said Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter in a blog post published at WhiteHouse.gov.
Senior administration officials vowed implementation of the law would “proceed apace.”
Well, go ahead, see what happens if you try to implement Obamacare without actually overturning the decision.
And notice that term “activism.” The correct translation when a liberal says it is “a decision I don’t like.” There is no other definition for liberals. They don’t mind cases that overturn precedents, that overturn federal laws, and that invent rights out of thin air. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that the judge’s opinion is not supported by the constitution or precedent—they have no principled objection to that. So their objection is merely to losing.
And meanwhile anonymous White House officials had this to say:
White House officials said that sort of “surpassingly curious reading” called into question Judge Vinson‘s entire ruling.
“There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis,” said a White House official who briefed reporters late Monday afternoon, speaking on condition of anonymity.
That is via Volokh’s David Bernstein who wonders why they were granted anonymity for such inanity. As Jennifer Rubin correctly argues “These are complaints, not legal arguments. And they suggest that the left was totally unprepared for the constitutional attack on their beloved handiwork.” Again, Obama himself was a constitutional law professor. And he was caught by surprise? Shouldn’t he have known this might happen?
Is there a job he is good at?
Meanwhile Ezra Klein makes a feeble attempt to attack the ruling. I would fisk it, but the boys at Powerline already have.
Meanwhile Brian Beutler manages to commit murder against an innocent straw man:
Vinson tossed the entire thing because it lacked a “severability clause,” which would have compartmentalized the legislation itself and forced judges to weigh individual sections on their own merits. But the standard isnot that an unseverable law should be stricken in its entirety.
No, Ferris Bueller Beutler, it is not simply an automatic either/or proposition. Sometimes the court says that one part can be severed. And other times the court says that it can’t be. But as Jennifer Rubin points out, Obama’s own lawyers conceded it couldn’t be severed. Which should end the discussion.
And while most judges are content to label the judge a republican, Think Progress takes the screeching to an additional level, calling him (without citing any evidence) a Tea Party Judge. Or is the new rule that anyone who mentions the Boston Tea Party is a member of the current Tea Party?
Or wait, maybe they mean this kind of Tea Party?
Tell the truth, liberals. You think the modern, political movement called the Tea Party is exactly like this, don’t you?
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]