NO Decision Today
- Thread starter Yagents
- Start date
lazy boogers need to get on the stick...
- 11,997
Good thing this isn't an important decision.
- Thread starter
- #4
- 2,908
A couple of them may be working overtime in a big way.
Note that in the AZ decision Kennedy was the swing vote so had to write the decision on that one.
And odds are that Kennedy is the swing vote on the Obamacare decision so he probably has to write that one too.
If so, he is chugging away pretty hard these days.
- 14,808
Getting the mandate stuck down would be just an emotional victory. The WH has already announced that nothing will change, they'll get a "patch" and it's all systems go.
The only think that kills this puppy is if they not only strike down the mandate, but the rest of it - citing that it's not severable.
The only think that kills this puppy is if they not only strike down the mandate, but the rest of it - citing that it's not severable.
Last edited:
- 3,352
Again, if the law is NOT severable, how can the supreme court rule that only the mandate is unconstitutional and keep the rest? This is still puzzling to me.....Somebody explain this. Again, if the mandate goes, why doesn't the entire thing go? Nobody is providing clarification on this. Winter or Tater you guys got an explanation on this?
- 14,808
Just an opinion but the risk pool, for example, is not unconstitutional.
Dime... to me since there is no sever clause and the SCOTUS is not charged with creating law or trying to get in the minds of elected lawmakers the entire thingy should be killed.
Why? because an argument could be made that they took/ left out the sever clause becaue law makers wanted the entire thing killed if any part was ruled unconst. because the law could not stand without the support of the mandate.
back in the day we always had sever clauses in any law we passed, our legal team said it had to be there to keep the rest of the law breathing.
SCOTUS dosent write law and striking the mandate does just that without the clause.
unlike some on here I also feel that if they rule only the mandate bad the rest of the law colapses upon its own weight... it just cant survive... Obama knows this but needs votes... BAD
Why? because an argument could be made that they took/ left out the sever clause becaue law makers wanted the entire thing killed if any part was ruled unconst. because the law could not stand without the support of the mandate.
back in the day we always had sever clauses in any law we passed, our legal team said it had to be there to keep the rest of the law breathing.
SCOTUS dosent write law and striking the mandate does just that without the clause.
unlike some on here I also feel that if they rule only the mandate bad the rest of the law colapses upon its own weight... it just cant survive... Obama knows this but needs votes... BAD
Last edited:
- 2,908
It has not been determined that the law is severable or not severable. That is one of the issues before the court. It is true that the law did not contain a severability clause in it so some people immediately conclude that nothing is severable. That may or may not turn out to be the case but the lack of a severability clause does not make it as watertight as some people assume. The Court would rely upon it if it were in the bill but they are not precluded from using their discretion in the absence of it. In other words, even though there is no severability clause saying that it is all or nothing, the court is not precluded from arriving at the conclusion that Congress, rather than the court, would know better what should remain and what should not based on how the whole program was supposed to work.
So if you ask a question with the idea that severability is a given then the answer is one thing but if you beleive that it is one of the issues that is being decided then all sorts of scenarios are possible.
Personally, I can see the court shooting down the mandate (and possible a couple sections where the parties argued before the court that they depended on the mandate) and then telling congress to eliminate whatever they dont want from there because those are program decisions and not consitutional decisions. So even if the court shoots down the mandate and some other parts dependent on it do I see them shooting absolutely everything down such as regulations on coal mining health and safety and all of that? No, not really. There is a lot of oddball stuff in there that I dont think the court wants to even touch and both the lib and conservative judges agree that you should always find a way to defer to Congress whenever you can unless there is a constitutional barrier to it. The mandate presents a constitutional issue so it is in a different category.
Just giving you where my thinking is at. The court will let me know where I am wrong on Thursday. I don't really know. I am just trying to discourage you from asking a question in a way that presupposes that the law is not severable. That is all fine, unless the Court decides otherwise.
Last edited:
Similar threads
