Senior United States District Judge Roger Vinson has just handed down a ruling that gives President Barack Hussein Obama and his Administration 7 days to appeal Judge Vinson’s original decision which declared Obama’s signature legislation , affectionately known as Obamacare, unconstitutional.

Here is Judge Vinson’s conclusion:

As I wrote about two weeks after this litigation was filed: “the citizens of this country have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as practically possible”

That was nearly eleven months ago. In the time since, the battle lines have been drawn, the relevant case law marshaled, and the legal arguments refined. Almost everyone agrees that the Constitutionality of the Act is an issue that will ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward.

 I note that two of the pending appeals (in the Fourth and Sixth Circuits) are apparently proceeding on an expedited basis.

Therefore, the defendants’ motion to clarify (doc. 156) is GRANTED, as set forth above. To the extent that motion is construed as a motion to stay, it is also GRANTED, and the summary declaratory judgment entered in this case is STAYED pending appeal, conditioned upon the defendants filing their notice of appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review.

So, now, Scooter and his minions have 1 week to file a request for review with the 11th Appellate Court, which is very Conservative in nature.

Guess which Supreme Court Justice is assigned to this court?  Justice Clarence Thomas, whom the Libs have all been screaming to recuse himself, from hearing Obamacare, because of lobbying activities by his wife.

Of course, they do not mention that new Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, helped in the preparation of Obamacare.

Nope.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

Referring to his original ruling, and the Administration’s defense that the individual mandate is covered under the Commerce Clause, Judge Vinson wrote:

Such an unprecedented and potentially radical expansion of Congress’s commerce power could only be authorized in the first instance by the Supreme Court, or possibly by a Constitutional amendment. It is not for a lower court to expand upon Supreme Court jurisprudence, and in the process authorize the exercise of a “highly attractive power” that Congress has never before claimed in the history of the country which Congress’s veryown attorneys have warned “could be perceived as virtually unlimited in scope.”

After concluding that the individual mandate could not be supported by existing Commerce Clause precedent — nor under Necessary and Proper Clause case law, including the recent doctrinal analysis articulated in United States v. Comstock, I then considered the question of severability.

In deciding the severability issue, I began by recognizing and acknowledging that, if at all possible, courts will usually only strike down the unconstitutional part of a statute and leave the rest intact. However, I noted that this was not the usual case, and that its unique facts required a finding of non-severability.

In particular, I noted that:

(i) At the time the Act was passed, Congress knew for certain that legal challenges to the individual mandate were coming;

(ii) Congress’s own Research Service had essentially advised that the legal challenges would have merit (and therefore might result in the individual mandate being struck down) as it could not be said that the individual mandate had “solid constitutional foundation” [CRS Analysis, supra, at 3];

(iii) And yet, Congress specifically (and presumably intentionally) deleted the “severability clause” that had been included in the earlier version of the Act.

I concluded that, in light of the foregoing facts, the conspicuous absence of a severability clause — which is ordinarily included in complex legislation as a matter of routine — could be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized that the Act could not operate as intended if the individual mandate was eventually be struck down by the courts.

Just a reminder, if the Supreme Court rules Obamacare Constitutional, the individual mandate requirement to purchase health insurance for all citizens and legal residents takes effect in 2014.

According to a summary prepared by the National Association of Health Underwriters on March 29th, 2010:

There are specified exceptions under current law and violators will be subject to a phased‐in excise tax penalty for noncompliance of either a flat‐dollar amount per person or a percentage of the individual’s income, whichever is higher.

In 2014, the percentage of income determining the fine amount would be one percent,then two percent in 2015, with the maximum fine of 2.5% of taxable (gross) household income capped at the average family bronze‐level insurance premium in 2016.

The alternative is a fixed‐dollar amount that begins at $325 per person in 2015 and goes to $695 in 2016.

If the Department of Justice files within the next 7 days, the stay on Judge Vinson’s original ruling will remain in place until the Appellate Court’s Ruling.

However, this is still a victory for those opposing Obamacare, as it forces the Administration’s hand, when they would rather putz around with the Wisconsin Public Unions Problem or throw Motown Parties at the White House.

Justice may be blind, but she sure ain’t stupid.