Go Back   Let's Roll Forums > Blogs > trueblue
Connect with Facebook

Rate this Entry

Healthcare insanity

Posted 28 Jun 2012 at 13:56 PM by trueblue
Updated 28 Jun 2012 at 14:12 PM by trueblue (added anti injunction act)

I awoke today to the news that the United States Supreme Court upheld the most egregious sections of the so-called Obamacare.

“The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a ‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax.’ That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.”

Unbelievable!

In other words, they admit it is un-constitutional, but not prohibited by an act (what the hell is the Anti-injunction act?)

Read that quote over and over until you understand just how corrupt the court system in America is.


The Anti-Injunction Act, (ch. 22 of the Acts of the 2nd United States Congress, 2nd Session, 1 Stat. 333, 28 U.S.C. 2283), is a United States federal statute that prohibits any federal court from issuing an injunction against proceedings in any state court, except within three specifically defined exceptions. The Act was enacted on March 2, 1793 as Section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1793, to alleviate states' fears of federal power.
The current language of the Act states:
A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.[1] A body of case law has grown with respect to the questions of what constitutes an express authorization; what is necessary in aid of jurisdiction; and what constitutes protection or effectuation of a judgment. Cases have also hinged on questions of what orders constitute an injunction by the federal court against the state court.
Among the statutes recognized as express authorization to grant an injunction under the first exception is Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. The second exception is used in two areas: to prevent state courts from continuing to hear matters which have been removed to federal court, as well as to permit federal courts to enjoin state suits in cases of real property dispute where a federal claim is filed first. It is relatively rare in application. The third exception is used to prevent parties who have lost in federal litigation from seeking hearing of their cases in state court.
The Supreme Court case Younger v. Harris, while addressing questions distinct from the Anti-Injunction Act, is relevant to the subject of federal injunctions against state court proceedings, insofar as it (and its progeny) enunciates additional doctrines relating to federal courts' injunctive power.
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 9634 Comments 1
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 1

Comments

  1. Old Comment
    Phil Jayhan's Avatar
    Thanks for posting this Will. Remember, if you make posts in the regular forum there is a button at the bottom of every post you make, if you have a blog here, to turn it instantly into a blog post as well, so it is like 2 for 1.

    And this Obama care is pure Bullshit. Nothing good in it for people, everything in it is great for super corporations. This is another sad day.


    cheers-
    phil
    Posted 2 Jul 2012 at 20:06 PM by Phil Jayhan Phil Jayhan is offline
 

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Ad Management by RedTyger