Read at least the first part of this, from Rush’s judge friend...6-3 7-2 YES!
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.
I pray this is how it goes down.
Depends on whether or not the New Black Panthers offer a bounty on 'em.
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
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.
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.
This entire week, from the SCOTUS arguments to Rush’s show, has been highly educational.
I was wondering who the “judge buddy” of Rush might be — and then it dawned on me that Mark Levin (another talk show host) has mentioned several times (on the air) that he often sends text messages with Rush. So...it appears to me that Mark Levin could very well be the “judge buddy” in question. :-) FReegards.....