[Twenty-seven] states/state attorneys general file lawsuit on health care bill

[Dos Equis]

 

Hawaii to join other states in legal papers supporting federal health care reform law
By Associated Press

POSTED: 06:20 p.m. HST, Jan 21, 2011

Gov. Neil Abercrombie is announcing that Hawaii will join several other states in legal papers defending the health care reform law that President Barack Obama and Congress enacted last year.

In a statement today, the Democratic governor called the law a "momentous step forward" that preserved the best elements of Hawaii's long-standing health care statutes.

Democrats say the national law has awarded $22 million to help Hawaii families, including nearly 20,500 seniors, pay their prescription drug expenses.

Hawaii joined a friend-of-the-court brief with California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Oregon, New York and Vermont.

It was filed Wednesday in the appeal of a federal district court ruling in Michigan that upheld the law.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/114403964.html

[Soul Crusher]

What  fool you guys have for Gov.   

[The Showstoppa]

Wonder if ole Neil can actually locate the paperwork to file it?

[Dos Equis]

What  fool you guys have for Gov.   

Ya think?  He really made a fool of himself with that birth certificate stuff.

You should see who he put in his cabinet.      We are in for a long four years. 

[Dos Equis]

US Judge May Escalate Battle Over Healthcare Reform
Monday, 31 Jan 2011
     
A Florida judge on Monday become the second U.S. judge to declare President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.

The judge, Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, was expected to rule on a lawsuit brought by governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans. Obama is a Democrat.

The plaintiffs represent more than half the U.S. states, so the Pensacola case has more prominence than some two dozen lawsuits filed in federal courts over the healthcare law.

No specific time has been given for Vinson's ruling, which was unlikely to end the legal wrangling over the contentious reform law, which could well reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

But an aide said he was determined to issue his opinion in the course of Monday on the suit filed on March 23, 2010, just hours after Obama signed the reform into law.

The healthcare overhaul, a cornerstone of Obama's presidency, aims to expand health insurance to cover millions of uninsured Americans while also curbing costs. Administration officials insist it is constitutional and needed to stem huge projected increases in healthcare costs.

Two other district court judges have rejected challenges to the "individual mandate," the law's requirement that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.

But a federal district judge in Richmond, Va., last month struck down that central provision of the law in a case in that state, saying it invited an "unbridled exercise of federal police powers."

The provision is key to the law's mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured. Officials argue it is only by requiring healthy people to purchase policies that they can help pay for reforms, including a mandate that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be refused coverage.

Vinson has suggested strongly that he too will rule the individual mandate oversteps constitutional limits on federal authority. He also may move to invalidate the entire law, by granting the plaintiff states' request for an injunction to halt its implementation.

"The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent," Vinson wrote in an earlier opinion in October.

Speaking during another hearing last month, he added that it would be "a giant leap" for the courts to encroach on the freedom of citizens to buy or not buy a commercial product.

The 70-year-old appointee of President Ronald Reagan even noted that he himself had been uninsured, paying out of pocket when the first of his five children was born.

Vinson's comments did not necessarily conclusively signal how he might rule on the full merits of the case.

He has also shown little sympathy for the plaintiffs' secondary argument for striking down the reform law, on the grounds that it violates state sovereignty by imposing a vast expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides healthcare for the poor and disabled.

But his ruling on the individual mandate could mark a major setback for Obama on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court, the highest U.S. legal authority.

If Vinson orders an injunction, the government would almost certainly appeal and seek an immediate stay of the ruling.

Vinson's ruling will come after the House voted this month to repeal the healthcare reform law. The repeal is unlikely to go any further as the Democratic-controlled Senate is expected to drop it.

Since a full legislative repeal seems like a non-starter in the current Congress, legal experts all agree the real battle over reform is destined for the Supreme Court.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/healthcare-reform-Florida-judge/2011/01/31/id/384471

[MCWAY]

Hey, Beach!

That judge just ruled that the mandate is UNCONSTITUIONAL!!!

[Soul Crusher]

Awesome. 

[James]

US Judge May Escalate Battle Over Healthcare Reform
Monday, 31 Jan 2011
      
A Florida judge on Monday become the second U.S. judge to declare President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.

The judge, Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, was expected to rule on a lawsuit brought by governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans. Obama is a Democrat.

The plaintiffs represent more than half the U.S. states, so the Pensacola case has more prominence than some two dozen lawsuits filed in federal courts over the healthcare law.

Great news !!!

No specific time has been given for Vinson's ruling, which was unlikely to end the legal wrangling over the contentious reform law, which could well reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

But an aide said he was determined to issue his opinion in the course of Monday on the suit filed on March 23, 2010, just hours after Obama signed the reform into law.

The healthcare overhaul, a cornerstone of Obama's presidency, aims to expand health insurance to cover millions of uninsured Americans while also curbing costs. Administration officials insist it is constitutional and needed to stem huge projected increases in healthcare costs.

Two other district court judges have rejected challenges to the "individual mandate," the law's requirement that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.

But a federal district judge in Richmond, Va., last month struck down that central provision of the law in a case in that state, saying it invited an "unbridled exercise of federal police powers."

The provision is key to the law's mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured. Officials argue it is only by requiring healthy people to purchase policies that they can help pay for reforms, including a mandate that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be refused coverage.

Vinson has suggested strongly that he too will rule the individual mandate oversteps constitutional limits on federal authority. He also may move to invalidate the entire law, by granting the plaintiff states' request for an injunction to halt its implementation.

"The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent," Vinson wrote in an earlier opinion in October.

Speaking during another hearing last month, he added that it would be "a giant leap" for the courts to encroach on the freedom of citizens to buy or not buy a commercial product.

The 70-year-old appointee of President Ronald Reagan even noted that he himself had been uninsured, paying out of pocket when the first of his five children was born.

Vinson's comments did not necessarily conclusively signal how he might rule on the full merits of the case.

He has also shown little sympathy for the plaintiffs' secondary argument for striking down the reform law, on the grounds that it violates state sovereignty by imposing a vast expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides healthcare for the poor and disabled.

But his ruling on the individual mandate could mark a major setback for Obama on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court, the highest U.S. legal authority.

If Vinson orders an injunction, the government would almost certainly appeal and seek an immediate stay of the ruling.

Vinson's ruling will come after the House voted this month to repeal the healthcare reform law. The repeal is unlikely to go any further as the Democratic-controlled Senate is expected to drop it.

Since a full legislative repeal seems like a non-starter in the current Congress, legal experts all agree the real battle over reform is destined for the Supreme Court.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/healthcare-reform-Florida-judge/2011/01/31/id/384471

Great News!

[Soul Crusher]

How can anyone defend this mandate? 

[MCWAY]

How can anyone defend this mandate? 

Without the mandate, virtually NOBODY will sign onto this crap. If you don't believe me, ASK OBAMA and his left-winged cronies. They don't even want to be part of their own law.

[Dos Equis]

Hey, Beach!

That judge just ruled that the mandate is UNCONSTITUIONAL!!!

Nice. 

Federal judge says key parts of health care reform unconstitutional
January 31st, 2011
03:01 PM ET

[Updated at 3:41 p.m.] A federal judge in Florida has ruled unconstitutional the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama, setting up what is likely to be a contentious Supreme Court challenge in coming months over the legislation.

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."

Judge Roger Vinson, in a 78-page ruling, dismissed the key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - the so-called "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face
stiff penalties.

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and
Inequities in our health care system," Vinson wrote.

"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.' "

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/31/federal-judge-says-key-parts-of-health-care-reform-unconstitutional/

[Soul Crusher]

The mandate was the corrupt bargain reached by obama and the carriers.   
 
Screw them both. 


I hope this thing goes down in flames at the SC which it will.   


FFFUUUBBBOOOO

[Soul Crusher]

Skip to comments.

FL Judge Rules Against Obamacare, Injunction Denied As Unnecessary Since Entire Law Unconstitutional
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion ^ | January 31, 2011 | Professor William A. Jacobson, Cornell Law School


Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional. Judge Vinson found that 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).

Here is the conclusion of the Order:

"The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

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.” ... In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.

For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional."

Florida Health Care Mandate Lawsuit, Summary Judgement Order (At link or web address below) http://www.scribd.com/doc/47906075/Florida-Health-Care-Mandate-Lawsuit-Summary-Judgment-Order

[James]

Skip to comments.

FL Judge Rules Against Obamacare, Injunction Denied As Unnecessary Since Entire Law Unconstitutional
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion ^ | January 31, 2011 | Professor William A. Jacobson, Cornell Law School


Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional. Judge Vinson found that 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).

Here is the conclusion of the Order:

"The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

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.” ... In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.

For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional."

Florida Health Care Mandate Lawsuit, Summary Judgement Order (At link or web address below) http://www.scribd.com/doc/47906075/Florida-Health-Care-Mandate-Lawsuit-Summary-Judgment-Order

“U.S. Judge says entire health care law must be declared void”.

ENTIRE ACT DECLARED VOID, because parts cannot be broken out of it!!!

Obamacare to the dumpster!!!!

[Soul Crusher]

DU and HP are freaking out.

[James]

From the Washington Times

"Judge uses Obama’s words against him

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

[Soul Crusher]

I've posted that clip many times.

[James]

[Soul Crusher]

Again - obama campaigned against the very fucking thing he is now demanding of us. 

Obama is such a lying sack of communist trash, I don't know who is worse, him, or the idiots and morons still supporting this kenyan madoff.

[James]

not all bad news for libs....At least Unions in these 26 States wont have to ask for an exemption from Obamacare now !!!!!

[SAMSON123]

Fla. judge strikes down Obama health care overhaul
AP

By MELISSA NELSON, Associated Press Melissa Nelson, Associated Press – Mon Jan 31, 6:53 pm ET

PENSACOLA, Fla. – A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care overhaul unconstitutional Monday, siding with 26 states that argued people cannot be required to buy health insurance.

Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed with the states that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. He went a step further than a previous ruling against the law, declaring the entire thing unconstitutional if the insurance requirement does not hold up.

Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Monday the department strongly disagrees with Vinson's ruling and intends to appeal.

"There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal," she said in a statement.

The final step will almost certainly be the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have already upheld the law and a federal judge in Virginia ruled the insurance mandate unconstitutional but stopped short of voiding the entire thing.

At issue was whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.

Vinson, who was appointed to federal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1983, said it is, writing in his 78-page ruling that if the government can require people to buy health insurance, it could also regulate food the same way.

"Or, as discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals," he wrote, "Not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system."

Obama administration attorneys had argued that health care is part of the interstate commerce system. They said the government can impose a tax penalty on Americans who decide not to purchase health insurance because all Americans are consumers of medical care.

But attorneys for the states said the administration was essentially coercing them into participating in the overhaul by holding billions of Medicaid dollars hostage. The states also said the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it.

Vinson said the courts have generally not accepted similar arguments about Medicaid as a violation of state sovereignty and that the states did not provide enough evidence in this case.

"I appreciate the difficult situation in which the states find themselves," he wrote. "It is a matter of historical fact that at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the Founders did not expect that the federal government would be able to provide sizable funding to the states and, consequently, be able to exert power over the state to the extent that it currently does."

He said that the only way the states would have legal standing to claim the Medicaid portion of the law is coercion would be for the Supreme Court to change the Constitution.

"Unless and until that happens, the states have little recourse to remaining the very junior partner in this partnership," Vinson wrote.

Still, opponents of the health overhaul praised his decision Monday afternoon. House Speaker John Boehner said it shows Senate Democrats should follow a House vote to repeal the law.

"Today's decision affirms the view, held by most of the states and a majority of the American people, that the federal government should not be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and punishing you if you don't," he said in a statement.

Democrats just as quickly slammed the ruling.

"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.

Former Florida Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The nation's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, also joined.

Officials in the states that sued lauded Vinson's decision. Almost all of them have Republican governors, attorneys general or both.

"In making his ruling, the judge has confirmed what many of us knew from the start; ObamaCare is an unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement on the liberty of the American people," Florida GOP Gov. Rick Scott said in a statement.

Other states that joined the suit are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

[Purge_WTF]

  You can't force the public to buy anything. Case closed.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama himself campaigned against the mandate. 

Enough said. 

[Soul Crusher]

Posted at 6:32 PM ET, 01/31/2011
Left unprepared for ObamaCare ruling
By Jennifer Rubin
www.washingtonpost.com


________________________ _______________


Liberal pundits who have consulted liberal law professors about liberals' great achievement -- ObamaCare -- are pronouncing the ruling by Judge Roger Vinson to be much to do about nothing. The ruling is. . . um. . . thinking of a case liberals hate. . . um. . . just like Bush v. Gore ! (Except it has nothing to do with the Equal Protection Clause or any other aspect of that case.) It is, we are told, "curious," "odd," or "unconventional."

These are complaints, not legal arguments. And they suggest that the left was totally unprepared for the constitutional attack on their beloved handiwork. After all, the recent mocking by the left of conservatives' reverence for the Constitution suggests they are mystified that a 200-year old document could get in the way of their historic achievement. They are truly nonplussed, and so they vamp, not with reasoned analysis but with an outpouring of adjectives.


Liberals are particularly perturbed by Judge Vinson's ruling on severability, the determination as to whether the individual mandate is so central to the law as to make the law unrecognizable and unenforceable without it. But here, the left has only the administration and the Democratic Congress to blame. From the opinion (the defendants are the Obama officials):

Having determined that the individual mandate exceeds Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, and cannot be saved by application of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the next question is whether it is severable from the remainder of the Act. In considering this issue, I note that the defendants have acknowledged that the individual mandate and the Act's health insurance reforms, including the guaranteed issue and community rating, will rise or fall together as these reforms "cannot be severed from the [individual mandate]."

Oops. Not some crazy judge, but the administration was the source of the notion that the individual mandate can't be severed from the rest of the law.

But it's not just the administration; it seems Congress did its part to contribute to the invalidation of the whole statute. Judge Vinson observes that "the Act does not contain a 'severability clause,' which is commonly included in legislation to provide that if any part or provision is held invalid, then the rest of the statute will not be affected." He observes that this defect is not necessarily determinative. However, "The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law." Oh, now, there's a problem.

That is no small matter, the judge explains:

The absence of a severability clause is further significant because the individual mandate was controversial all during the progress of the legislation and Congress was undoubtedly well aware that legal challenges were coming. Indeed, as noted earlier, even before the Act became law, several states had passed statutes declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and purporting to exempt their residents from it; and Congress' own attorneys in the [Congressional Research Service] had basically advised that the challenges might well have legal merit as it was 'unclear' if the individual mandate had 'solid constitutional foundation.'"

As the opinion goes on, the judge makes clear that the Obama team dug its own grave on the severability point:

To be sure, the words "protection" and "affordable" in the title of the Act itself are inextricably tied to the health insurance reform provisions (and the individual mandate in particular), as the defendants have emphasized throughout the course of this litigation

Ezra Klein cherry picks one line from the case ("This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated") as evidence the court is doing something untoward. But a cursory reading of the the preceding pages explains why this outcome is not likely to be repeated. Congress in removing the severability clause, the Obama lawyers in repeatedly arguing the individual mandate was essential to the statute and, finally, the interlocking pieces of the statute itself are such that it's hard to imagine a similar case arising.

The only thing "odd" about the ruling is the left's response. The cheerleaders for ObamaCare better hope the Obama legal team has some better arguments in the upcoming rounds of litigation.



________________________ _______________________-



Great news.    Not only is the bill a steaming ile of shit, but the incompetent idiots who drafted it forgot the severability clausemeaning MadoffCare is going away in its entirety.   

[dario73]

Already some networks are trying to discredit the judge by saying he was appointed by Reagan. An attack on the person but not the logic of his decision. It would be ideal if the argument was whether his decision was correct or not. Not on who appointed him.