Posted on 03/29/2012 2:31:02 PM PDT by Kaslin
Read at least the first part of this, from Rush’s judge friend...6-3 7-2 YES!
Don't hold your breath. If it happens, GREAT! But I for one will not believe it until I see it.
I will remain cautiously optimistic until the decision is made public in June. Until then, I will continue to pray the socialist monstrosity is declared unconstitutional in it’s entirety.
It will be fun if it is struck down for something Kagan was hired to make sure that it was all written proper and could stand the test.
All the more fun that She refused to step aside because She was involved in it.
She’s sitting there like Buddha in the front row, watching Her train wreck!
You Go Girlfriend You are so smart mmm mmmm mm
Stop being so negative
Kagan is what impeachment was intended for....
Kagan’s impeachment for failing to recuse herself from this should be one of the first things done in the next congress.
Severability clause(s) means that part(s) of the law are protected if some are struck down. Without any severability clauses, if one part is struck down the whole thing can go with it.
Great stuff from Rush!
I pray this is how it goes down.
Depends on whether or not the New Black Panthers offer a bounty on 'em.
on what grounds? seriously. Mere refusal to recuse is not necessarily grounds to impeach and remove. You realize the chief judge would be dragged into this as to why he did not make that happen?
To: the invisib1e hand
but I hope it's so.
Me too, but there is a good chance. Here's some links via Bing:
severability clause
Thanks...I thought I understood it correctly.
What an awesome responsibility the Justices of 2012 have to Adams and the other Framers of America's Constitution "make good use" of the opportunity they have now to "preserve" freedom for future generations!
If they "do not," then history will record their action as a betrayal of the trust of all the brave men and women who have been willing to sacrifice everything for freedom's cause--from 1776 to now.
May they feel the heavy cloak of responsibility they bear for the freedom of those future generations, and may their opinions recall those ideas of individual liberty so beautifully articulated by the Framers of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.
"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
Insurance is not “health care”. It is merely a convenient vehicle to pay for expensive government regulated medical services and products.
Are we not all actively enduring the devastating results of the Federal Governments unconstitutional meddling into a different financial product? (Property Loans)
No severability clause, the whole “thing” must be struck down.
It should not take 3 months for this to be decided correctly and announced.
I have a theory on what will happen and why. Obamacare will be struck down in toto. I believe that the conservatives on the court did not agree to take on this case at this time — they could have waited — if they did not believe they had the 5 votes to strike it down. I think they had the 5 votes from the get-go. So, they were ready to take it on. Also, if they waited and the law was implemented and Obama re-elected and another justice retired, they would never have the 5 votes. Just a theory, of course. I have no evidence or source to back this up.
"...and what I always thought severability was, if the Congress puts a clause in the bill, the severability clause, then it's a matter of law that any portion of the law can be thrown out but the rest of the law stands. That, I was told by my judge buddy, is not what it is."
But then ends up back where he started.
"They took the severability clause out. Therefore, according to the letter of the law, the entire bill must be stricken. According to the letter of the law, all of Obamacare must now be thrown out, because Congress never intended the rest of the bill to pass without the mandate in it. That's what severability means, as explained to me by my judge buddy."
In fact, if you listened to the arguments, the justices said there is no such rule and how courts determine what is severable has varied. They spent a great deal of time debating how to much such a judgement, but there was a consensus that the presense or lack of a severability clause means nothing.
They can't know what votes they have before there are arguments and briefs and debate. They took the case because it was there. They could have taken it earlier and chose not to.
I predict a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling striking down the mandate and certain other provisions that are directly tied to the mandate. The entire law will not be struck. Their biggest problem is going to be figuring out how to draw the line, but they'll come up with something. As some of the justices pointed out, many of the provisions in the 2700 pages are routine functions, and it even includes some annual appropriations that would have been passed on their own. They aren't going to strike all that.
This entire week, from the SCOTUS arguments to Rush’s show, has been highly educational.
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.