Posted on 12/13/2010 9:21:01 AM PST by careyb
Just in... will keep you posted...
I will certainly grant that if the 4th circuit and the SC let stand the strike of Section 1501 it sure makes the issue of “de-funding” by the House a simple solution — they simply refuse to grant other funding and then deal with cutting funding to alternate enforcement and execution methods.
Yes, that’s the same article to which I linked in 141. It goes on to say that not having a severability clause doesn’t mean the whole bill gets thrown out. The SCOTUS left parts of Sarbanes-Oxley in place even though it didn’t have a severability clause either. The court has the option to presume severability. This is isn’t clear cut.
Yes, that’s the same article to which I linked in 141. It goes on to say that not having a severability clause doesn’t mean the whole bill gets thrown out. The SCOTUS left parts of Sarbanes-Oxley in place even though it didn’t have a severability clause either. The court has the option to presume severability. This is isn’t clear cut.
Great one more flawed court.
Great one more flawed court.
Great one more flawed court.
Congress can easily not appropriate funds for the legislation. . .if they had the political will to do so.
REPEAL THE ENTIRE THING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Watch, Stephen Breyer will find a way to argue that James Madison wanted National ObamaCare.
And he’ll do it with a smile, while sounding so very grandpa-sh and downright nice.
I’m sorry, but my explanation is absolutely true.
The judge is only allowed to answer the question that was asked. If he extends his ruling beyond that, it is grounds for the ruling to be struck down based on procedural and jurisdictional grounds. To stay within the confines of the law, the judge has to rule within the limited scope of the case before him.
The principle, though, applies throughout the land. On that we absolutely agree. But, the ruling in this specific case is rightfully limited to the confines of this specific case - until it is expanded by other rulings, or until it is contradicted by other (unconnected) rulings.
Once again: I agree that the principle of the ruling should be applied throughout the land. BUT, the scope of the ruling necessarily limits its direct application to only the specific jurisdiction involved. In this case, the state of Virginia.
Obama is as successful on the healthcare bill as he was on the Chicago Olympics and the World Cup in the U.S. Bozo the Clown and he have a lot in common.
There's no "significant error", except in Orin Kerr's logic. If you read that post's comments, reader "GMUSL '07 Alum" provides an excellent response to Orin's silly statement.
There is no significant error in the logic Hudson applied to the “necessary and proper” clause. The author at volokh misses the boat. Chief Justice Marshall didn’t say that Congress could use unconstitutional means to achieve an end. In fact, he said that the means must themselves be according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
But to the author’s point ... that the individual mandate is a means to a Constitutional end. What end? Requiring the purchase of insurance seems like an end rather than a means.
He is just “sitting” in for “Washington-Bob” Gibbs, LOL!!!
Because contrary to their pontifications to the contrary THEY DID READ THE BILL!
>Why should Virginia be exempt, and the rest of not?<
Ahem. Are you forgetting about Nebraska?
“Nebraska’s sweet deal on healthcare reform could lead to lawsuit”
And the Cornhuskers got their exemption because of a deal cut by their Rat politician. Virgina’s exemption would be from a constitutional standpoint, not backscratching.
WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.