Yesterday, before the House passed a measure to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement provision from the Affordable Care Act, Republicans took umbrage at the suggestion that they had mischaractarized the law as a “government takeover” of health care and forced Democrats to strike the accusation from the record. The tussle began after Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), incorrectly accused Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) of using the “takeover” rhetoric and therefore propagating what PolitiFact characterized as “the lie of 2010.”

Lungren however, didn’t use the phrase in the address that proceeded Blumenauer’s accusation and demanded that it be stricken from the record. It was and Blumenauer apologized, conceding that he likely misattributed the remark. Indeed, the phrase was used by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) an hour earlier. Watch a compilation:

Despite Lungren’s outrage and Blumenauer’s mistake, Republicans routinely rely on the poll-tested phrase. But according to PolitiFact, “government takeover” conjures a European approach — “where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees — that does not reflect the reality of health reform. From the group:

- Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.

- Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up “exchanges” where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don’t have it.

- The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.

- The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.

- The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.

As for Lungren, a quick search of his website reveals that he uses the phrase repeatedly. In this press release from May 25, 2010, Lungren says, “Democrats in charge of Congress have pursued a partisan agenda, rather than addressing the concerns of the American people. Whether forcing a government takeover of health care, passing a National Energy Tax, stacking up record deficits, or ignoring our nation’s jobs crisis, the actions of this Congress have been against the will of the American people.”

Earlier this week, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) seemed to apologize for referring to the Affordable Care Act as a “one-size-fits-all federal government dumb-ass program” and “an awful piece of crap.” But last night, during an appearance on Fox News’ ‘On The Record,’ Hatch — who may face a Tea Party challenger in his re-election bid — doubled down on his description, saying that the law is “a lot worse than that”:

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, senator, you’ve been quoted in terms of the health care bill saying that it is an “awful piece of crap and a dumb ass program.” Now how do you really feel about it?

HATCH: I guess I should tell you how I really feel because it is a lot worse than that. It really is a bad piece of legislation, everybody knows that, including the president. I don’t see why he keeps pushing it. They know it is not going to work. If he gets reelected within a couple of years he will though his hands in the air and say it is not good. We have to go to a single payer system.

Watch it:

Hatch voted against the law, but was initially part of a group of bipartisan senators headed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) who sought to build agreement for comprehensive reform. Hatch left the group out fear that they would endorse a public option and full-blown employer mandate, both of which were not part of the proposal or the existing health law. Then, as now, Hatch warned that those provisions would lead to single-payer health care. “If we go to a government-run system, I’ve got to tell you, everybody in America is going to be very sad,” he told Van Susteren in 2009.

During that appearance, Hatch also emphasized his willingness to work across partly lines saying, “I’ve negotiated with everybody from Henry Waxman, who is one of the most liberal members of the House, to Ted Kennedy, one of the most liberal members of the Senate. I’ve negotiated with both President Clinton and President Obama. I like every one of them.” Indeed, Hatch even supported an individual requirement to purchase health insurance in 1993, a measure he now vehemently opposes.

Yesterday, in response to DOJ’s motion asking Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson to clarify whether his error-ridden opinion striking down the Affordable Care Act takes immediate effect, Vinson showed uncharacteristic restraint by staying his decision and allowing the Act to move forward while the case is on appeal. That, however, is only part of the story.

Although Vinson did issue a stay, he devoted the lion’s share of yesterday’s order to a “rather defensive summary of his earlier opinion and, at times, a response to critics.” As with so many things regarding Judge Vinson, his order is riddled with legal errors:

• First, in striking down the ACA, Judge Vinson did not issue an “injunction” — the legal term for an order compelling a party to take or refrain from a certain action. Instead, Vinson issued something known as a “declaratory judgment.” This distinction is important because, in a case called Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, the Supreme Court held that the United States is “free to continue to apply” a law that is subject to a declaratory judgment “[p]ending review in the Court of Appeals and in this Court.” In other words, had Vinson actually followed the law, it would have been completely unnecessary for him to issue a stay because his decision would have never halted the ACA in the first place.

Vinson attempts to dodge this binding Supreme Court decision by noting that, since this case was decided, Congress repealed a completely irrelevant statute concerning whether a single judge may enjoin the United States. That statute has nothing to do with declaratory judgments, however, so the fact that it was repealed gives Vinson no authority to defy Mendoza-Martinez.

• Second, Vinson likely chose not to issue an injunction because he failed to complete the lengthy steps required by law before a judge may do so. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an injunction must “describe in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained or required.” As the Supreme Court has explained, this requires a court to “frame its orders so that those who must obey them will know what the court intends to require and what it means to forbid.”

Vinson, however, provided no such instructions. Does Medicare now have to pay providers at different rates depending on whether they are subject to his declaratory judgment? What payment rates should Medicare provide to doctors who are subject to his order? Are members of the National Federation of Independent Business, which is a party to this lawsuit, no longer allowed to claim tax benefits under the ACA? How is the IRS supposed to know who is and who isn’t an NFIB member? Vinson answers none of these questions, and therefore left the United States will no idea how it could have complied with his original order had that order not been stayed.

• Third, before a party can benefit from a court order, it must possess the legal right to seek legal relief — a requirement known as “standing.” Yet Vinson held that only two of the plaintiff states — Idaho and Utah — have standing to sue in this case (the decision that these two states have standing was itself erroneous). Vinson lacks the legal authority to apply his order to the other 24 state parties, but he does not seem to care. Indeed, at one point in yesterday’s order, he implies that he could very well have imposed his order on the state of Washington — even though he never determined that Washington has standing.

• Fourth, as Professor Orin Kerr, a former constitutional advisor to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), explains, Vinson issued the stay “with an important condition: DOJ must file its appeal in seven days, and DOJ must then request an expedited appeal in the circuit court. This seems pretty unusual to me, given that DOJ wasn’t even seeking a stay from Judge Vinson. The pace of appellate litigation is normally up to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the litigants, and the Court of Appeals judges — not a district court judge.”

The bottom line is that Vinson’s order bears no resemblance to the law, and will almost certainly hurt his credibility with an appellate court.