Interesting that she took up the very example of Scalia's, to me, not very adept argument about what Congress could mandate Americans buy. I wonder whether that was intentional or not. My guess is that it was unintemtional and she's let the cat out, that the mandate will be rejected while the rest of it stands. (the unsustainable outcome).
No...I think she was actually referring to the.......I’m not going to read the whole damn thing which was said by one of the justices....So I think she was saying that they wouldnt’t do it piecemeal...and that Congress has to go back to the drawing board and deal with the insurance companies. It’s like the contraceptive issue....does the government have the right to say you MUST...because MUST means taking away rights.
I concur. “Sharp disagreement” refers to a minority opinion, either her’s or the wise(azz) Latina. If she were referring to a Thomas or Scalia minority opinion, she wouldn’t have characterized it as gentlemanly as “disagreement”.
And you may be spot on re: broccoli chopping and individual mandate, versus the whole. Ironically that is the singular worst possible outcome for Bobo. Can’t run against the Supremes, can’t connive a new way to fund it either.