Posted on 06/18/2012 3:41:16 AM PDT by Perdogg
Today the court is handing down decisions, possibly in the Arizona Immigration Law case.
Make your Prediction on:
1. Az Immigration law 2a. Heathcare Mandate 2b. Heathcare Servability 3. Stolen Valor Act
Thank you for pointing that out. I wonder if the original poster, Perdogg, might ask an admin to correct it in the first post. I notice a number of replies to the original post copy and continue with the misspelling.
What bothers me most about that is the perception that some folks may not understand what it is they're making predictions about.
The root of the word severability is sever. If the Supremes rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the question before them is: can the mandate contained in the so-called affordable care act be severed from the legislation and allow the remainder of the act to stand?
“Alito and Roberts (Bush 43)”
I am so happy now that the Conservative movement was able to overcome his Myers nomination to bring us Roberts!
The second statement you say astonishes you most isn’t true.
A lot of states are doing their best to stand up to him on a variety of fronts.
If he ignores a clear Court ruling as to what the law is, the states can ignore him.
Also, Steve King of Iowa says he will file suit against Obama in federal court in regard to the immigration changes by Obama to the written laws.
He won a similar suit against then Iowa governor Vilsack within the Iowa court system, when Vilsack tried to do the same type of thing Obama is now.
Stolen Valor is a law that forbids individuals from claiming they won military honors and decorations that they did not win. Makes it illegal in other words to claim that if it isn’t true.
It seems the issue will be framed as a free speech issue.
Are you free to lie, even about military honors, without being punished by the law if you do?...
...seems to be the question.
Well, by all means, nobody ELSE has ever read it, why should the Court?
“I believe a severability clause is included when Congress wants to state their intent that the law can be severed in its parts without the entire law either being upheld or struck down.”
txrangerette,
Thanks! This is what I was trying to say, but I guess I didn’t express myself very well. Anyway, let’s hope this whole enchilada gets shot down!
Based on what's going on in the "Courts" today, and the total takeover that's near-complete, I don't believe I'll be incorrtect on them at all. (Possibly on the "Stolen Valor" prediction, maybe)
Most people (weak ones), blame Bush for EVERYTHING; this is unique in you're gonna blame Reagan.....
“I thought that Reid removed the “severability clause” from the bill so that the mandate could not be detached from the rest of the bill. If the mandate goes the rest of bill implodes. Am I wrong about this? Does anyone know for sure?”
I thought so too! I hope some of our FRiends offer some good clarification.
Are they all coming down?
Chase a spoonful of cold bacon grease with a glass of warm mayonnaise, too.
thanks for the clarification. As an old Army dog myself, I can’t believe I missed it. In addition, I thought that was settled law decades ago. Who filed the suit that would result in allowing liars to lie? (Hmm, must be a dem organization.)
If we lose that one, then we might as well start awarding Congressional Medals of Freedom to avowed socialists that have actively supported tyrants.
A severability clause ALLOWS the mandate part to be detached from the rest, according to stated Congressional intent.
Since one wasn’t included in the bill, the Court has no need to consider legislative intent on that issue and is unincumbered in it’s decision to ax it as a whole, uphold it as a whole, or take a scalpel to it and hack away at parts while leaving others (which idea Scalia ridiculed during oral argument).
It seems true that Reid wanted the mandate to be indistinguishable from the rest. Apparently believing that the Court would be less likely to ax the mandate or the whole, if it was indistiguishable.
I also read that the House wouldn’t have passed it if severability was included, but I don’t know if that’s true.
Seems he wanted to box in the Court, politically, by making their ruling most difficult.
But if the Court ignores politics, and follows law and precedent and the Constitution and common sense, the Court will strike down the entire law.
6-3 striking down mandate
5-4 against severability
5-3 against Arizona law
If they vote against the Leftist encroachment, then it might mean the Supremes did not take kindly to the public dissing by The Won, nor the blatant application of The Chicago Way.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh my bad. I was thinking healthcare even though i read the comment. I guess because that was so controversial.
She actually argued in court against the AZ law, if I’ve got that right.
In Obamacare, apparently “ALL” she did was craft arguments behind the scenes for later use.
A distinction without a difference.
BTW, your tagline is excellent. You could even add the cop card and the firefighter card, if you wanted, but teacher alone does the job.
Just for kicks, if someone has a Troll account on DemocratUnderground, they should post a story of “Supreme Court holds up ObamaCare, 6 to 3!”
Then just have post a bad link to Huffingpost or something.
They’ll throw the left a bone by striking down Az’s law (Fed law trumps all) then strike 0bamacare down later.
Is there a deadline for them to release the healthcare decision? I thought they were supposed to release it in June... can they put it off indefinitely? Until after the election?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.