[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

As I mentioned the other day, the Obama administration filed a highly misleading and bizarre “Motion to Clarify” in the Florida Obamacare case.  Well, today the states filed their response and well, apparently they cribbed off of me.  Consider the following…

From my post on the Motion to Clarify:

…the adminstration’s lawyers are confused and seek to clarify, or so they say.  But in truth, they seem to be actually intent in getting the judge to grant a de facto stay of his ruling…

Now from the states’ memorandum:

Defendants’ Motion is, in fact, a transparent attempt,  through the guise of seeking clarification, to obtain a stay pending appeal.

I mean they are being more formal, but they are basically saying the same thing, right?  And consider this part from my post:

Anyway, the brief as a whole is a thinly disguised motion for a stay or motion for reconsideration of the entire ruling…

And from the states’ memorandum:

Likewise, Defendants’  purported motion for “clarification” is infused with a scattershot discussion of alleged defects in the scope of the Court’s judgment, suggesting their real aim is a  reconsideration of the Court’s  ruling.

And from my discussion of Kennedy v. Medoza-Martinez:

There are several problems with applying Mendoza to this current situation, not the least of which being that the statute in question was repealed.

From their discussion of the same case:

[T]he Court’s decision was predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 2282, a statute that precluded single-judge district courts from barring the operation of a federal regulatory scheme on constitutional grounds, and that statute was repealed by Congress more than a generation ago, in 1976.

And the discussion of Carreno v. Johnson are also similar, but not with such an easily quotable parallel.

Of course I am joking.  It is simply the case that two like-minded people saw the same flaws in the government’s motion and we were equally able to see through their transparent attempt to convince the court to grant a stay or reconsideration without calling it that.  Its like two mathematicians reaching the same solution to a problem; in theory that is how it is supposed to happen.  There should be one correct answer.  So they probably never even read my little posts…

Or so I thought until I came across this line in their memorandum:

Defendants’  contention  that  the Court needs to clarify this basic legal principle “throws sand in [the Court’s] eyes[.]”

And then I remembered the title of this post…

Holy crap!

So to the attorneys representing the states, please contact me for payment arrangements for the free legal help I gave you.  Or just make a sizable donation to Patterico using the options on the side in my name.

————-

Actually joking aside, they do say a lot that I didn’t.  I just found the parallelism interesting.  And one smart move they made was to pre-empt any motion for a stay.  They correctly state that the legal standard is as follows:

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether  the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.

And then they answer each point.  I’ll punt on one, because obviously the judge who ruled against them is not going to say they are likely to succeed.  But then on the second issue, they write:

[T]he very fact  that Defendants refrained from immediately filing an appeal and seeking a stay, and instead waited two and one-half weeks and then merely moved to clarify the final judgment, seriously undermines any claim of irreparable injury….

Moreover, Defendants fail to show that they are “irreparably injured” by being prevented from continuing to roll out the hundreds of provisions that Congress intentionally bound together in the unconstitutional ACA.  The preexisting status  quo  should  be  in  effect  –  just  as  it  will  be once the appellate process is concluded and the Court’s judgment striking down the ACA has been affirmed.

And then reaching the third issue:

Third, Defendants cannot get around the obvious costs and burdens imposed on Plaintiffs by the continuing implementation of the unconstitutional ACA’s provisions.  Plaintiffs have  demonstrated in their summary judgment filings – by reference to federal agency publications  and sworn declarations from State personnel, the NFIB, and the Individual Plaintiffs – that the  ACA is causing them substantial harm now.

And finally:

Fourth, the public interest must, first and foremost, be advanced by the protection and enforcement of the Constitution of  the  United  States.

And of course that analysis bore no resemblance to anything I wrote.

Again, putting my lame humor aside, what it is is a solid, workmanlike memorandum, that thoroughly exposes the flaws in the Obama administration’s motion.  They should sail to victory on this round.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]