Careful There, Ear Leader (UPDATED)

LC Subotai points out the Ogabe Junta’s troubling response to Judge Vinson’s finding, which basically amounts to “fuck the law, we’re going straight ahead regardless” or, as they literally put their reaction to OgabeCare being found un-Constitutional in its entirety, “implementation will continue.”

Even CNBC noticed.

You just can’t do that under the law. What you can do, and what the Ogabe Junta should have done, had they cared one little fig about the law, would be to file for a stay and, quite frankly, considering the number of legal battles going on here and the almost certainty that it’ll go to the Supreme Court before it’s settled, we’re having a hard time imagining that such a motion would not be granted on the grounds that it is still very much early in the process but, then again, we’re not a lawyer.

Perhaps the Consigliere would care to chime in?

But the “Constitutional Scholar” in Chief obviously didn’t consider it necessary for his glorious self to follow the laws he is sworn to uphold and defend.

It’s becoming increasingly clear just why Ogabe decided to side, unequivocally, with the dictator-wannabe of Honduras when he was ousted in full accordance with the laws of Honduras, calling the citizens of Honduras utilizing their recourse to the law a “coup.”

Laws are not for him, obviously, at least not in his megalomaniacal, narcissistic, diseased mind.

CNBC asks the question:

should government officials mindful of the constitution start defying the Obama administration to honor the decision by the court?

If they have laid down an oath, then they have no choice. Except for the choice to join in the Ogabe regime’s unlawful usurpation of powers that are not theirs and their utter disregard for the rule of law.

And if they do decide, as Ogabe and his regime have apparently decided, that they’re above the law, then they’d do well to remember, all of them, that if you’ve declared yourself above the law…

Then you’re outside the law.

We trust that everybody can draw the only logical conclusion from there on out.

Thatisall.

UPDATE: Well, it seems that none other than Justice Vinson himself spelled out why he didn’t include a specific injunction, seeing as how there is no need to:

It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for 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).

Since the Ogabe Junta has clearly and unequivocally declared that they have no intentions of following the decision and won’t even follow the law as far as filing for a stay, they’re clearly in contempt. Actually, they’re bordering on sedition if they’re not already there, so if they don’t think again and start following the rule of law, impeachment would seem the only way to go from here.