Remember too, that the severability clause was REMOVED from the final law, and therefore if the mandate goes down, so should the entire horrid piece of legislation.
Let’s see if the SCOTUS really does their job.
If SCOTUS upholds 0bamacare but strikes the Mandate they are WRITING LAW not ruling on the law because they’ll be adding a severability clause. Anything other than a total strike down is unacceptable because the Mandate is absolutely unconstitutional.
Scotus showed yesterday they are not prepared to do their job. They piece-mealed the Arizona decision so they could give a little to everyone. They are using a purely political template. Why say this? Because there is no sane judge who'd read the Constitution to say that a state law cannot be enacted because it violates a president's decision to implement it.
IOW, if it had been a conservative president unconcerned with his direction being mirrored by a state law, then that Az law would have been constitutional. The ruling yesterday was that it's unconstitutional to violate a chief executive's whim. That's insane....as Scalia said, it's "mind-boggling".
What does this mean? It means they'll put a political template on the ObamaCare decision and give everyone a little bit of what they want. (And they'll turn a blind eye to any whim on the part of the president to fund it via executive redistribution of funds.)
Given that every citizen apparently lacks standing to challenge Obama on eligibility, I don't think I'll hold my breath.
You're correct. I wish I had any faith in them
.
It's not that simple.
This is like the old company store legislation.
If you worked the mine, you had to buy your supplies from the company store.
The normal living expenses were always more than what you earned so the company rigged life so as to make people virtual slaves.
Reverse the thought. What if they say we can’t sever it out therefore the entire stinkpile has to stay?