You should get your facts straight. Just because one has a J.D. doesn't mean that one is a lawyer. In fact, one can get a bar card, practice law, and then later quit. Levin's trade is political commentary now, not law.
Yes, please, get your facts straight. Stop with the a priori argument of "just because A exists doesn't
necessarily mean B does; A, therefore,
not B." That's not even logical.
From his website:
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."
Yes, please, get your facts straight. Stop with the a priori argument of "just because A exists doesn't necessarily mean B does; A, therefore, not B." That's not even logical. From his website: 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." 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?