Nuke it: Judge set to rule on enjoining Obamacare as early as this week

Judge Roger Vinson's original ruling striking down the entire health care law and barring its implementation couldn't be more clear. There was no need for an injunction since:

...the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient. In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived. By contrast, in the ruling in Virginia last year invalidating the mandate, the Judge severed the mandate from the rest of the law (but denied an injunction preventing the rest of the law from taking effect).

Here is the key language from the Order showing that Judge Vinson expects the federal government to obey the declaration that the law is unenforceable in its entirety:

"...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.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).

There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary."

In this sense, this decision is far more sweeping than the Virginia case, and presents a greater problem for the Obama administration which arguably does not have authority to implement any aspect of Obamacare.

Which makes the Judge's answer to the Obama administration's delaying tactics all the more momentous:

This week, the Florida federal judge who struck down the health care reform law in January is expected to answer the looming question his ruling left uncertain [sic]:

Did he mean to stop the law from being implemented in the 26 states that challenged the law?

The Justice Department has asked U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to clarify his ruling, and the judge gave the government until today to file a brief laying out its legal position. Vinson has promised to rule quickly on the motion once it's filed...

One can only hope that Judge Vinson treats Obamcare with all the respect it treats the Constitution: i.e., that he nukes it from orbit, since it's the only way to be sure.