Implied????? I thought the severability clause was specifically highlighted by a lower court judge and the ruling was that because there was not a severability clause written into the signed law, if any portion of it was found to be unconstitutional, it all was that way. What kind of flim flam are they trying to pull now? I realize they think they are above the law, but what is really needed is for the rigged Supreme Court to say it.
Hey i don’t wear black robes. The original ruling threw out the whole law. This left part intact. They could have upheld the original ruling. The fact that they didn’t means that they did indeed rule on severability.