Posted on 10/08/2010 2:31:57 PM PDT by jazusamo
He currently practices law in the private sector, heading up the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington DC.I suppose next you'll say something irrelevant like, "Well, he doesn't practice as many hours a week as I think he should to be called a real lawyer."
Uh, huh. And all of that is irrelevant to the fact that he is not now a full time practicing lawyer, he’s a political commentator.
And you'd be wrong in that assumption.
I was under the impression that if such is struck down then Congress must write legislation to fix it OR the whole law would need repealed.
Yes or no, is Levin engaged in the full time practice of law right now? Or does he engage in political commentary for a living? Yes or no, has Levin ever published a peer reviewed article on the severability doctrine? Can you provide any evidence that Levin has adequately researched the severability issue?
Finally, yes or no, has the United States Supreme Court established standards for determining when a provision of a statute is severable and when it is not?
Incorrect.
So, to you, it means his "lawyerness" has somehow expired after going into radio.
Do lawyers have to turn in their licenses when they stop chasing ambulances?
It takes an attorney to cloud the issues beyond all logic, so I gather you are one.
Cuccinelli of VA and McCollum of FL are both under that impression. I've heard each of them on several occasions state that if SCOTUS finds just on part of ObamaCare unconstitutional, then the *entire* law goes down because of its lack of a severability clause.
"[A] court should refrain from invalidating more of the statute than is necessary. . . . [W]henever an act of Congress contains unobjectionable provisions separable from those found to be unconstitutional, it is the duty of this court to so declare, and to maintain the act in so far as it is valid." Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock.
"[W]e try not to nullify more of a legislature’s work than is necessary, for we know that [a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people." Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng.
The only thing that really matters is the Case Law on this issue, not what Levin or anyone else says about this issue.
Sounds like you may be speaking more for yourself than anyone else.
In fact, one can get a bar card, practice law, and then later quit.
True, but one is still by definition no less a lawyer. Unless, of course, assuming you were ever one, it was you who quit -- or were forced to quit. In that case you are free to consider yourself a has-been, possibly even a disbarred lawyer.
That said, one needn't necessarily be disbarred and not practice law, but in your case I could make an exception.
Levin's trade is political commentary now, not law.
It is one of his trades, but certainly not his only trade. As president of Landmark Legal Foundation, Levin advises preparation of cases as a lawyer. Are you alleging that his bar status is not current, or that he doesn’t advise the preparation of cases, and sign briefs prepared by Landmark in representation of Landmark’s legal interests in his capacity as a lawyer?
Did you actually just cite Wikipedia? BWWWWWWWAAAAAAHHAHHAHAHA!
Was there something inaccurate in the biographical information found in Wikipedia that you’d care to point out, or is it just that your jealousy is showing through again?
Uh huh, and it's a book meant for the masses, not an entry in a legal journal on the severability doctrine, which of course is what is relevant to the context here.
You have read far too much into what I said, and in so doing my point completely escaped you. One imagines this happened to you under cross-x on more occasions than you’d ever truthfully admit.
I named Levin as a legal historian, even as I made the reference to his fine book. I did not say that Levin spoke to the severability clause in this text. You read that in -- very poor debate form on your part.
In that Levin demonstrates a command of the history of law and legal precedent in way in which so far you have failed to demonstrate the same on behalf of yourself, I am more inclined to hold Levin’s legal opinions in a higher regard than yours. It’s really no more difficult to comprehend than that.
Me: Just curious: Have you ever been a practicing Attorney General, yourself? You: Fallacious.
Busted.
Let the record show that the Competency-to-comment score now stands at Cuccinelli (1), “freedomwarrior998” (0).
Me: And again, just curious -- have you any personal experience practicing before the same courts as Levin has, or have you any experience arguing any of the points you are trying to make here before any court of law? you: Yes.
Yes, to one, or both? Name the case(s) where you argued the points that your are trying to do here re: severability in the context of the current “Obamacare” lack-of-severability clause issue. This should be quite revealing.
Did you even read Cuccinelli's brief? Virginia is challenging the mandate, not the entire law.
If you understood anything about the pivotal importance of the severability issue in the present context you’d also know Cuccinelli doesn’t have to.
Look up the cases yourself.
You make the point, you cite the case, you defend it. The obligation is yours alone to show that you even know the facts of the case(s) and that the context for each is even relevant to the topic. So far, you’ve just been blowing smoke.
The severability doctrine is well established.
And that’s really all we ever needed to know isn’t it? Thank you for conceding that point finally.
Whether you like it or not, the lack of a severability clause does not mean that the Court will strike down the entire bill because of one Unconstitutional provision.
One can never be 100% certain of an outcome. But the severability issue is relevant and it can be used in this instance to strike down the whole law. All your pretending won’t change that.
And that’s why you are wrong.
You can't even spell his name correctly.
Incorrect, and here you resort to hyperbole. Again -- very bad debate form. I demonstrated earlier that I spelled his name correctly, I just didn’t happen to do so here. I can tell that “arm-chair lawyer” dig really got to you.
What is becoming ever more clear at this point in the discussion is that your position is inherently weak, as your attempts to sidetrack the debate merely demonstrate your penchant for becoming distracted.
In any case, Virginia is challenging the mandate, which is most likely Unconstitutional.
Most likely? You have some doubt? Can you name the provision in the Constitution which mandates that an individual purchase anything? I know Obama once claimed to have been a Constitutional “professor” at one point, but are you at all familiar with the US Constitution yourself ?
However, even if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, [sic.] does not mean that the rest of the bill will be.
My point originally was simply that Cuccinelli would disagree with you. Since Cuccinelli is in the position he is in and it is a position your demonstrated level of “talent” has never held, or likely has ever come close to holding, he knows more about the likelihood of success of his case than a wannabe like you could ever possibly hope to know. So does Levin and for similar reasons.
Whether or not you like the way that the Courts have established the severability doctrine, the doctrine is settled law.
Can you name the law that settled “the doctrine”? U.S.C. citation will do.
I have no problem at all with the severability “doctrine.” It only makes my point much more substantial. It is your argument which fails in the face of it.
J.D. does not = lawyer.
True, but one is still by definition no less a lawyer. Unless, of course, assuming you were ever one, it was you who quit -- or were forced to quit. In that case you are free to consider yourself a has-been, possibly even a disbarred lawyer. That said, one needn't necessarily be disbarred and not practice law, but in your case I could make an exception.
What are you rambling about? This rather pathetic ad hominem attack automatically undercuts any other statement that you might make here. Nice job.
It is one of his trades, but certainly not his only trade. As president of Landmark Legal Foundation, Levin advises preparation of cases as a lawyer. Are you alleging that his bar status is not current, or that he doesn’t advise the preparation of cases, and sign briefs prepared by Landmark in representation of Landmark’s legal interests in his capacity as a lawyer?
Prove it. Do you have any proof that Levin is actively involved in the preparation of cases?
Was there something inaccurate in the biographical information found in Wikipedia that you’d care to point out, or is it just that your jealousy is showing through again?
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.
You have read far too much into what I said, and in so doing my point completely escaped you. One imagines this happened to you under cross-x on more occasions than you’d ever truthfully admit.
Again, prove it.
I named Levin as a legal historian, even as I made the reference to his fine book. I did not say that Levin spoke to the severability clause in this text. You read that in -- very poor debate form on your part.
But you did so in an attempt to appeal to his authority, and to imply that his supposed statement on the severability of Obamacare is accurate. (BTW: Can any one prove that Levin actually made such a statement?) Further, there is any debate here. There is no such thing as a real "debate" on an internet message board. The fact that you think there is, is quite telling about your mentality.
In that Levin demonstrates a command of the history of law and legal precedent in way in which so far you have failed to demonstrate the same on behalf of yourself, I am more inclined to hold Levin’s legal opinions in a higher regard than yours. It’s really no more difficult to comprehend than that.
Once again, prove it. You are quite good at making conclusory statements, however, you have yet to provide any proof for your assertions. Prove that Levin has a command of the history of the law. Citing the name of his book does nothing. Moreover, one could be an outstanding legal historian, and have not a clue as to the nature of a specific legal issue such as the severability doctrine.
Busted. Let the record show that the Competency-to-comment score now stands at Cuccinelli (1), “freedomwarrior998” (0).
Really now? "Busted" as to what? Your commentary is nothing more that juvenile banter. It's quite amusing. You envision a "debate" that you think you can "win" on an internet message board, and think that you actually scored a point. In reality, you were utterly embarrassed by your previous remarks, and are now desperately lashing out in an attempt to hide your ignorance.
Yes, to one, or both? Name the case(s) where you argued the points that your are trying to do here re: severability in the context of the current “Obamacare” lack-of-severability clause issue. This should be quite revealing.
I already cited relevant precedent to you. You just don't want to hear it.
The fact is, the severability issue in relation to Obamacare HAS been discussed quite extensively.
http://www.redstate.com/ben_domenech/2010/08/17/severability-and-obamacare/
http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/28274
Can you provide a cite to Levin's supposed statements on this issue?
Incorrect, and here you resort to hyperbole. Again -- very bad debate form. I demonstrated earlier that I spelled his name correctly, I just didn’t happen to do so here. I can tell that “arm-chair lawyer” dig really got to you. What is becoming ever more clear at this point in the discussion is that your position is inherently weak, as your attempts to sidetrack the debate merely demonstrate your penchant for becoming distracted.
You did it more than once genius. And once again, there is no debate. I just pointed out that your assertions are inaccurate, and you threw a tantrum because you'd rather sit with your head in the sand.
Most likely? You have some doubt? Can you name the provision in the Constitution which mandates that an individual purchase anything? I know Obama once claimed to have been a Constitutional “professor” at one point, but are you at all familiar with the US Constitution yourself ?
I don't have any doubt. What the Courts will do is another thing entirely. The fact that you presume to know what the courts will do is more telling as to your arrogance and conceit than anything else.
Can you name the law that settled “the doctrine”? U.S.C. citation will do. I have no problem at all with the severability “doctrine.” It only makes my point much more substantial. It is your argument which fails in the face of it.
Your question is a red herring. Whether you like it or not, judicial review exists, and the Courts develop tests and doctrines to deal with issues such as severability. I've already provided citations to the appropriate precedent, including precedent from the current Roberts Court. If you want to bury your head in the sand, it's fine by me.
You're telling me that they do this for NO particular reason...since is isn't needed.
Reminds me of Obama spending millions of dollars on attorneys to block access to his birth certificate and other records...as if everyone does it.
Legislative intent is easy to discern if the "boilerplate" severability clause is inserted. If the clause is lacking, the Court can still look to the overall intent of the Congress, it's just less clear.
Numerous provisions laws have been upheld, despite the fact that certain provisions in the law were Unconstitutional, and the law lacked a severability clause. Again, Congressional intent is the key consideration.
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.