One paragraph from an article today in Politico explains well why many feel the Justices will strike down the entire PPACA law if they strike the mandate or any major portion:
5) Cruel and unusual punishment
Scalia told the government lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, that going through the text of the whole law would run counter to the Eighth Amendment — the one forbidding cruel and unusual punishment.
JUSTICE SCALIA: "And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?"
Justice Stephen Breyer, in an exchange with Clement, seemed equally appalled at the prospect.
JUSTICE BREYER: "When I look through the rest of it, I have all kinds of stuff in there. And I haven't read every word of that, I promise. As you pointed out, there is biosimilarity, there is breast feeding, there is promoting nurses and doctors to serve underserved areas, there is the CLASS Act, et cetera.
"What do you suggest we do? I mean, should we appoint a special master with an instruction? Should we go back to the district court? You haven't argued most of these…So what do you propose that we do other than spend a year reading all this and have you argument all this?
...Ginsburg also argued that it wasn't the Court's job to pick and choose- it was Congress's. JUSTICE GINSBURG: "And what we're really talking about is who is the proper party to take out what isn't infected by the Court's holding — with all these provisions where there may be no standing, one institution clearly does have standing, and that's Congress. And if Congress doesn't want the provisions that are not infected to stand, Congress can take care of it."
By the way, the entire article is exceptional. You can read it here:Supreme Court health care: Seven key moments from SCOTUS, Day 3 - POLITICO.comScalia told the government lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, that going through the text of the whole law would run counter to the Eighth Amendment — the one forbidding cruel and unusual punishment.
JUSTICE SCALIA: "And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?"
Justice Stephen Breyer, in an exchange with Clement, seemed equally appalled at the prospect.
JUSTICE BREYER: "When I look through the rest of it, I have all kinds of stuff in there. And I haven't read every word of that, I promise. As you pointed out, there is biosimilarity, there is breast feeding, there is promoting nurses and doctors to serve underserved areas, there is the CLASS Act, et cetera.
"What do you suggest we do? I mean, should we appoint a special master with an instruction? Should we go back to the district court? You haven't argued most of these…So what do you propose that we do other than spend a year reading all this and have you argument all this?
...Ginsburg also argued that it wasn't the Court's job to pick and choose- it was Congress's. JUSTICE GINSBURG: "And what we're really talking about is who is the proper party to take out what isn't infected by the Court's holding — with all these provisions where there may be no standing, one institution clearly does have standing, and that's Congress. And if Congress doesn't want the provisions that are not infected to stand, Congress can take care of it."