Re: first reports, Obama's failure to appeal, and Judge Vinson's decision to vacate ObamaCare, altogether. Barack now has 7 days to appeal or quit.

Let's have an adult but brief discussion with regard to leftist insurance companies subtle bias for the Left, Judge Vinson's order to void the ObamaCare, and Barack's strategy of ignoring Vinson's order . . . simply ignoring the order.

Our segue is the article from Kaiser Health News.

While the individual news reporting on the January Federal Court's decision was "good" as some level, Kaiser offers summary reports of left leaning news sources to the exclusion of conservative sources. If we were to make a listing of liberal news services, our list of such publications would include all of the news outlets quoted in the Kaiser post. FoxNews is not mentioned, the largest news agency on the internet. Neither is the Washington Examiner or the Financial Times or Investors Daily or Heritage or even The Hill.

Again, it is not the text [below] we are interested in, for the sake of this post. It is the progressive agenda pursued by Kaiser Health that is most revealing. Know this, Big Pharma and related health services are in bed with ObamaCare. They only care about the dollar. They do not care where the dollar comes from, whether a dictator or a president. Is that really wrong? You will need to decide. The fact remains that one can account for a particular bias by who quotes whom and who ignores whom.

The reporting, below, concerns itself with first reports of Judge Vinson's January decision that ObamaCare be vacated as a law. Understand that this was his decision. He went far beyond the offering of a legal opinion against the health care law. He ruled in terms of an injunction; the law is null and void. He expected the Obama Administration either appeal his order or stop with the continuing push to implement the law. He did not expect Obama to ignore his ruling.

In the WaPost lead-in, the comment was made that "Vinson stopped short of granting a request by the plantiffs [25 states joined in this particular suit - jds] to suspend the law . . ." Turns out, with the events of yesterday, Marh 3 of 2011, that this is exactly what he did not do. He "stopped short" of nothing. According to the judge, himself, his ruling was equal to an injuctive order to cease and desist.

What is common to the initial news reports, below, is the fact that each missed the point of Vinson's decision. His ruling made the law null and void, its continued implementation impossible unless and until the Obama Administration appeals the decision. For some unknown reason, Obama did not appeal the decision and opposes putting the bill on a fast track to the Supreme Court. We say "For some unknown reason" when, in point of truth, we believe we know the reason. Obama and Company are afraid of the court's ultimate decision. They had hoped that the appeals process would take two or more years, giving the Administration time to institutionalize most of the law, making a repeal nearly impossible. In others, there are some within the Administration who know this law is unconstitutional . . . . . . . . . . but no one in the Administration cares.

In yesterday's news, were reports of the discovery that the Administration included funding of the idiot law to the tune of 105 billion dollars. The law is already funded !! All this talk of preventing funding is mute in light of this secretive strategy on the part of the Marxist back door dealing Democrat trash that was the 111th congress. Honesty and forthright conduct was totally lacking with this bunch of Marxist scum.

Here is Bachmann on video from yesterday. We found no text reporting this circumstance in our media sources, this morning. As you listen, you might find yourself asking, "Why did Bachmann not know.? Did she not read the bill, either?" Understand that ObamaCare was not first written and then drafted into law. It was in a constant state of flux right up to the day it was passed into law. At one time, the Senate version was sequestered in Harry Reid's office for nearly three weeks while he amended the bill. We suggest that had Bachmann read the bill, she would not have found this provision. We believe it was a late date addendum in an effort to conceal its existence.
m

m

Never forget that the current civil war is between those who believe in the Constitution and those who do not.

From our source at Kaiser ( http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Topics/Reform.aspx ) we have the following left wing reports. A couple seem fairly innocuous; others are blatantly misleading. All ignore the legal consequence of this law if left to stand without appeal, as Obama has chosen to do.

Jan 31, 2011

Bloomberg: "U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Florida, declared the law unconstitutional in a ruling today. ... Vinson's ruling may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, is already slated in May to hear challenges to two conflicting federal court rulings in that state, one of which upheld the legislation while the other invalidated part of it. The U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately be asked to consider the issue" (Harris, 1/31).

The Washington Post: "Vinson stopped short of granting a request by the plaintiffs to suspend the law pending further appeals, so in the short run, his ruling is unlikely to delay its ongoing implementation by the Obama Administration. Justice Department officials immediately said they plan to appeal the ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Aizenman, 1/31).

The New York Times: "In a silver lining for the Obama administration, the judge rejected a second claim that the new law violates state sovereignty by requiring states to pay for a fractional share of a Medicaid expansion that is scheduled for 2014. [Judge Vinson] dismissed the contention that states were being illegally coerced by the federal government. He said they always have the option, however impractical, to withdraw from Medicaid, a joint state and federal insurance program for those with low-incomes" (Sack, 1/31).

CNN: "Monday's ruling came in the most closely watched of the two dozen challenges to the law. Florida along with 25 states had filed a lawsuit last spring, seeking to dismiss a law critics had labeled 'Obamacare'" (1/31).

MSNBC: Vinson, "a Reagan appointee serving in Pensacola, Florida, ruled that key components of the law are unconstitutional and that the entire law 'must be declared void.' ... While the lawsuit addressed in Vinson’s ruling is the largest of its kind – with 26 states having signed on – today's decision is likely just one more step in the law's march to the United States Supreme Court" (1/31).

The Associated Press: "Obama administration attorneys had argued that health care is part of the interstate commerce system. They said the government can levy a tax penalty on Americans who decide not to purchase health insurance because all Americans are consumers of medical care. ... Opponents of the health overhaul praised the decision Monday afternoon. Democrats just as quickly slammed the decision.
'This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt by those who want to raise taxes on small businesses, increase prescription prices for seniors and allow insurance companies to once again deny sick children medical care,' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a prepared statement" (Nelson, 1/31).

The Wall Street Journal: "In his ruling, ... Vinson, a Republican appointee, said that the law's requirement to carry insurance or pay a fee 'is outside Congress' Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not constitutional'" (Adamy, 1/31).

Slate: The key paragraph of Vinson's decision is as follows: "'Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'" (Weigel, 1/31).

Kaiser Health News analysis: "The consensus is the Democratic appointed judges uphold the law and the Republican appointed judges strike it down – so far. We have two Clinton appointees upholding it ... and then we have two Republican appointees, Judge Vinson today, and Judge Henry Hudson of Richmond a few weeks ago saying it’s unconstitutional. Now I don’t claim that pattern is going to uphold all the way up to the Supreme Court and that the law’s going to get struck down 5-4 because there are more Republicans. I actually would probably bet – not a lot – but bet on it being upheld in court" (Taylor, 1/31).