Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obamacare Arguments Lean Against Severability (How the Justices are leaning)
National Review ^ | 03/29/2012 | Carrie Severino

Posted on 03/29/2012 6:36:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: marstegreg

Amen


21 posted on 03/29/2012 9:20:38 AM PDT by conservativebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

Kagan’s strategy is to argue if ANY part stands then it ALL has to stand. The left is arguing, and planned, a ONE CLAUSE rule. One clause saves it all.

IOW Obama thought the USSC was stupid.

That is why he disrespected Roberts during the state of the union. Obama viewed himself as imperial over all.


22 posted on 03/29/2012 9:26:28 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Justice Clarence Thomas is MUM. He NEVER, EVER opens his mouth. Which way he leans is anybody's guess.

Thomas is the most conservative Constitutionalist on the bench.
He ponders the testimony, relates it to what the framers intended and votes on the safe side of that.
His vote is rarely in question, and his opinions are direct, eloquent, and conservative. He will vote the mandate is unconstitutional and the entire law cannot provide force of compliance without it.

He might even be writing the majority opinion.

23 posted on 03/29/2012 9:27:01 AM PDT by Wizdum (My job is to get you to shoot soda out your nose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativebabe

:)


24 posted on 03/29/2012 9:27:48 AM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

So if that is her strategy, she would have to convince them the mandate is not unconstitutional? If I understand you correctly, I don’t think it is realistic for her to assume the unconstitutional mandate to fund the rest of it becomes constitutional because she likes some of the things in the bill. They cannot exist without the funding and if they can, isn’t it an undue burden on te states (since they will have to find a way to pay for this stuff). I think this bill passed because no one could understand (or cared to understand) it’s complexity. I also think it will fall because of it’s complexity. I understand that all the parts are so interwoven that it is almost impossible to pull them apart. This is a classic example of the administration not thinking things through. They didn’t plan for this (other than appointing Kagan and Sotomayor), and it shows.


25 posted on 03/29/2012 9:40:07 AM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

you have to think of a lawyer holding two views at the same time.

Kagan is going for the little bit pregnant argument. If any part can be deemed valid, then the rest no matter how unconstitutional or illegal must also be allowed to stand.

It turns every legal precident on its head but this is the left we are talking about. Kagan and sotomayor are legal mental midgets. Ginsberg has a brain but is blinded by age and agenda.


26 posted on 03/29/2012 10:11:11 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Severability should not be invoked, not only because it typically isn’t when it isn’t included, but especially because it was actually removed by a Congressional review committee. That clearly indicates that it was not intended by Congress, and so should not be inserted by the Court.


27 posted on 03/29/2012 10:47:59 AM PDT by Talisker (He who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

It turns every legal precident on its head but this is the left we are talking about. Kagan and sotomayor are legal mental midgets. Ginsberg has a brain but is blinded by age and agenda.

I have Rush on the radio right now. He said that his “judge” friend told him that it might not sit well to strick down the most important legistlation by the first “black” president. What are your thoughts on this? I don’t think it will matter because Clarence Thomas is the only black justice on the court right now and he is against it too. If he is against it, it can’t really be because of race.


28 posted on 03/29/2012 11:14:10 AM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Thomas leans against this entire law I would wager.


29 posted on 03/29/2012 8:47:22 PM PDT by Crucial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

I don’t understand Kennedy’s argument. It stands to reason that a bill that has unconstitutional provisions may also actually have constitutional provisions. Now, the individual mandate may make the entire bill unconstitutional as a whole.


30 posted on 03/29/2012 8:53:01 PM PDT by Crucial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Crucial
Limbaugh shed some light on severability today. See My Judge Buddy on Severability. Let me know if that helps.
31 posted on 03/29/2012 9:04:43 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Steyn: "If Greece has been knocking back the ouzo, we're face down in the vat.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Thanks for the clarification.


32 posted on 03/29/2012 9:12:10 PM PDT by Crucial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Wizdum

I hope you are right. If Thomas writes the majority opinion it will be an enlightening and uplifting review of what Constitutionalism means.


33 posted on 03/30/2012 7:24:55 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

How can’t judges decide if a Bill would pass congress? No one really knows without a vote. If the sitting congress did not vote on a Bill with a severability clause, then no one can’t know how they’d have voted.


34 posted on 03/30/2012 7:31:42 AM PDT by LevinFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Crucial

I understand Kennedy’s argument.

This is a piece of legislation. It arose from another branch of government. It would be more of a court intrusion into the legislative process of the other branch for the COURT to go through the bill line by line and rule on constitutionality and serverability, than it would be to simply strike down the entirity of it and let the legislature once again act, or not act, on a legislative matter.

Scalia made the same point, only using different words. It really isn’t the role of the COURT to micro examine a tortured, complex piece of legislation of almost 3,000 pages. Courts are there to get to the essence of a matter, the heart of the issue, and make a ruling.


35 posted on 03/30/2012 8:47:56 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

justice thomas knows the law is unconstitutional and does not need to question his beliefs.


36 posted on 03/30/2012 3:16:12 PM PDT by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson