- 3,352
Tater and Winter good stuff, thanks boys for the further clarification and insight. Anybody else wanna bring it?
NO Decision Today
- Thread starter Yagents
- Start date
- 15,319
i need a chorzio potato and egg taco... be sure and get some hot sauce for me
- Staff
- #14
that is my normal sat and sunday bfast...
- Staff
- #16
Its funny, the mandate was required to make the law work and now that it looks like it will probably get tossed, people are actually saying it will work better without it.
Personally, I don't see how any of the law stands without the mandate and I clearly don't see how the mandate is constitional, so I'm lost on how the whole bill doesn't get tossed.
Dan
Personally, I don't see how any of the law stands without the mandate and I clearly don't see how the mandate is constitional, so I'm lost on how the whole bill doesn't get tossed.
Dan
- 2,908
The court may agree with you that it cannot work without the mandate and still not toss the whole law because they believe that congress can do a better job of deciding what it still wants and does not want. Example, if the guaranteed issue piece was predicated upon having the mandate to defray costs, the court may not say that guaranteed issue has to go. Instead, it takes the view that it simply needs to tell congress that the mandate is going to go so if guaranteed issue is not going to work without the mandate then they need to repeal because the court doesnt care one way or the other.
I am not arguing for or against that. I am just giving a reminder that some of the justices started getting into that line of reasoning right in the middle of oral argument so we know that at least some of them are having those thoughts unless they changed later. In other words, their conclusion that the rest of the law will not work without the mandate does not necessarily mean they think they have to shoot it down if there are not constitutional issues in it. Some of the justices think that all they have to do is tell the justices what is no constitutional and then congress can clean up its own frigging mess.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with anything. Just sayin its their rationale we are going to get, not ours and a couple justices have already given a little preview.
Last edited:
- 1,007
Oh, I agree that the court could toss the mandate and tell congress to 'deal with it'. For a long time, I was sure that was what was going to happen.
Problem is, and my takeaway from the oral arguements was that it was to intertwined to be severed without basically the court rewriting the bill, which they clearly didn't want to do.
For instance, can you toss the mandate and keep guaranteed issue? I don't see how the court could let that happen. Since a large part of the bill is how it gets paid for, and without the mandate, none of that logic works, again, its a key piece.
My gut tells me that whichever judge said it would be cruel and unusual punishment to make them read it, really (in context with how it was said) was referring to the court reading through the bill and deciding what stands and what doesn't based on the mandate.
So, while I appreciate your keeping the common sense of reality going, I'm going with my predictions, which are either:
- The court overturns about 80% of the bill, leaving a few face saving things for both sides, such as the 80% provision, or the 26 year old rules, or whatever.
- The court overturns the mandate with a timebomb of fix it or else the whole thing is unenforceable. While this actually makes sense to me (not that I like it, just makes sense), I doubt they do this since its sooooo unSupreme like.
Dan
Problem is, and my takeaway from the oral arguements was that it was to intertwined to be severed without basically the court rewriting the bill, which they clearly didn't want to do.
For instance, can you toss the mandate and keep guaranteed issue? I don't see how the court could let that happen. Since a large part of the bill is how it gets paid for, and without the mandate, none of that logic works, again, its a key piece.
My gut tells me that whichever judge said it would be cruel and unusual punishment to make them read it, really (in context with how it was said) was referring to the court reading through the bill and deciding what stands and what doesn't based on the mandate.
So, while I appreciate your keeping the common sense of reality going, I'm going with my predictions, which are either:
- The court overturns about 80% of the bill, leaving a few face saving things for both sides, such as the 80% provision, or the 26 year old rules, or whatever.
- The court overturns the mandate with a timebomb of fix it or else the whole thing is unenforceable. While this actually makes sense to me (not that I like it, just makes sense), I doubt they do this since its sooooo unSupreme like.
Dan
Similar threads
