Waiting for an answer...
This is their reasoning from the opinion.
“The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the
Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of
judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional
system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate’s
excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the
presumption of severability has not been met.”
Losing the individual mandate eliminates the bill’s main source of funding for subsidizing 17 million new entrants to the health care insurance system. How will they pay for them now. No problem for deficit loving Congressional Democrats.
I think the rest of the law will prove to be unworkable without the draconian mandate.
I wondered the same thing.
Either they don't care about severability (they are judges, they write their own laws when they feel like it) or they are saying that if the law were re-written those parts would be found Constitutional.
Like Obama's private army??? WTF?
How could they uphold the rest of the law when it does not have severability?
+++++++++++++
Excellent question. I wish I had an excellent answer.
Severability clauses are not necessary for a court to uphold parts of the law, in fact, the general principle is that, with or without a severability clause, the court will try to maintain all parts of the law that are not ruled unconstitutional.