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.
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.