DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**erubresen** · 03-21-2011, 03:35 PM

Has everyone heard that upon the filing of a lawsuit that the law in Wisconsin recently passed may not have been passed legally. The judge issued an injunction preventing the law from taking effect upon the mere filing of the lawsuit. The law was not found to be passed illegally by the judge as the proceedings have not yet occurred.

Now, contrast that to Obamacare. A judge DID issue a final ruling that it IS unconstitutional (not merely in violation of technicality of legislative procedure) and gave 7 days for the administration to stop enforcing the vacated law. The Obama administration is ignoring the ruling and continuing to implement Obamacare.

Completely different situations.

In the Wisconsin matter, the Court which has issued the injunction has the authority to do to so for the entire State of Wisconsin.

The Court which ruled that portions of the ACA were unconstitutional only has the authority to do so within it's geographical jurisdiction. As such, there becomes a conflict where the ruling applies in some states but not in others. In a case such as this, the proper thing to do is stay the ruling pending final resolution of the Federal question.

The two situations are not comparable at all.

Matt

03-21-2011, 03:35 PM	#18
erubresen Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 431 Senior Member	Has everyone heard that upon the filing of a lawsuit that the law in Wisconsin recently passed may not have been passed legally. The judge issued an injunction preventing the law from taking effect upon the mere filing of the lawsuit. The law was not found to be passed illegally by the judge as the proceedings have not yet occurred. Now, contrast that to Obamacare. A judge DID issue a final ruling that it IS unconstitutional (not merely in violation of technicality of legislative procedure) and gave 7 days for the administration to stop enforcing the vacated law. The Obama administration is ignoring the ruling and continuing to implement Obamacare. Completely different situations. In the Wisconsin matter, the Court which has issued the injunction has the authority to do to so for the entire State of Wisconsin. The Court which ruled that portions of the ACA were unconstitutional only has the authority to do so within it's geographical jurisdiction. As such, there becomes a conflict where the ruling applies in some states but not in others. In a case such as this, the proper thing to do is stay the ruling pending final resolution of the Federal question. The two situations are not comparable at all. Matt
	Quote