It would seem that the Obama Administration is taking a page out of Bill Clinton's playbook when he wanted to play existential semantics with tense.
Now the Obama Administration is also playing existential semantics with U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's unconstitutional ruling on ObamaCare:
The Justice Department asked Vinson to clarify his ruling that struck down the law as unconstitutional. Justice must file its brief on the motion by Monday, and Vinson has said he would rule quickly after that. At issue is whether Vinson meant to stop reform implementation in the 26 states that brought the suit.
The smart money says Vinson will halt implementation, and legal observers are wondering why Justice would take that risk.
"Having lost one game of chicken when it came to the severability of the mandate, the government is now challenging the same judge to back down on whether his decision is binding. Seems like a risky move," said Randy Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University.
Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at The George Washington University, said he was surprised by the Justice Department's move, given that it could have gotten a lot of support for its view that Vinson's ruling wasn't clear enough to shut down state implementation.
"I've really thought hard about what's the tactical reason," Turley said.
A Justice Department spokeswoman would not comment.
Oh! My! God!
Whay are they wasting our time like this? Normally when something is ruled unconstitutional, it means unconstitutional. Not just for a couple of people, but for everyone! Even my aunt laughed at this and said someone needs to go to the second grade.
Also, wouldn't you try to appeal this ruling and get a stay? Instead they are daring the same judge who ruled against them, to do the same thing again!
I'm sorry I can't give you any more insightful commentary, but the Obama Administration has stuck me dumb at the moment. Just consider this an open thread.