[SeekAndFind]

And as usual, Justice Clarence Thomas is MUM. He NEVER, EVER opens his mouth. Which way he leans is anybody's guess.

[C210N]

State of the Union talking points, which charge the Court with what he calls “judicial activism,”...

The Executive Activism of the current regime is the most blatantly transformative and activist in United States history. It seems that 0bama is taking "whole cloth" and re-writing what the executive can do... crazy EO's (not applied, as in the Hyde-EO to get zer0care passed) (to be applied as in last weeks emergency powers). Deeming that one branch or another is in session or not. Performing ad-hoc unconstitutional line-item-veto, by applying only parts of bills agreed with.

[marstegreg]

I saw Ken Cucinelli on Greta last night and he said the the severability clause was in the bill when it went to the Senate. It was Harry Reid who knowingly removed it. If it was in there and they took it out, it means they wanted and voted on the bill as a whole. He said he included this information in his brief.

[C210N]

Which way he leans is anybody's guess...

Thomas indeed is mum, but he is the most conservative on the court, and writes incredibly well. So, he'll never rise to be Chief Justice (or shouldn't if he is completely silent). In his case, it's the thinking, opinions and votes that count. [the court can have one, maybe two, mum justices... as the others ask the questions, but not more than that].

[NonValueAdded]

Justice Kennedy on at least two occasions suggested that going into the law to pick and choose which provisions should survive would actually be a more “awesome” exercise of legislative power than striking down the law as a whole.

So basic yet so profound - frightening that it actually had to be uttered and that it becomes news.

I haven't read all of the coverage but did anyone raise the point that if Congress wanted the law to stand should a portion was deemed Unconstitutional, they would have added a severability clause as they have done so many times before?

[Bill Buckner]

I think the law will be struck with one expection, those parts of it already in place (ex. coverage for 26 year olds) will be allowed to continue for 1 more congressional session - that way congress will be given an opportunity to put 'em in a new 'Constitutional' wrapper.

Then you'll really see a game of chicken in congress to see who killed the remnants of Obamacare.

[longtermmemmory]

just think Kagan would have been arguing FOR the obamacare and the government lawyer was using HER notes in support of Obamacare. She did not need obamacare arguments since she wrote them.

[Lurker]

Which way he leans is anybody's guess.

Oh, I think I can guess which way he's leaning. Can't wait to read his opinion. It'll be one for the ages.

[Wizdum]

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.

[Talisker]

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.

[Crucial]

Thomas leans against this entire law I would wager.

[teeman8r]

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