from the decision:
Quote:
|
...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.”
|
Meaning...there is a federal court decision that the law is unconstitutional...therefore the Obama administration needs to stop what it's doing and seek its remedies in the legal system.
Quote:
|
...White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation...
|
I'm going to very charitably assume that the White House is saying this because they expect to have filed their appeals, and they reasonably expect the courts to go along with them, by 2014....
Certainly that is the case because otherwise Obamanation is acting in an exceedingly
seditious manner.
......
addendum....on further review, maybe the Obamas are acting quite seditiously now by acting to implement a statute which is, by the law of the land, unconstitutional....
....granted that may change as the issue goes up the ladder, but as far as anyone knows right now it is unconstitutional. Yet Obama, who is sworn to protect and defend the constitution, has said 'the hell with federal court rulings and the seperation of powers and all that', we're moving forward.
....oh, let's not go there. That'd be far too uncomfortable.