If they rule against the mandate (which IMO they will) then they can only rule how the mandates effect the entire bill or the consequences of the ruling. Merely stating they are aware of the consequences may be all that can be stated. Simply that with mandates unconstitutional the bill is an empty shell and needs reworking from scratch would suffice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Then why does your father think 6-3 against the entire bill? Would they then not say, in effect, "The act of determining which part to keep is not a judicial responsibility, it is legislative"... and we therefore strike down the mandate as unconstitutional and send the "crippled" bill back to you for you to deal with what remains. Isn't "empty shell" a legislative opinion, rather than a constitutional one? What would be their constitutional grounds for killing the whole bill? Breyer suggesting that his options include appointing a special master or going back to the district courts???
That’s why the opinions they write will be more important than the vote they take.
Their rational for voting it down completely or just passing an empty shell back to congress is more important than what how they vote.
One thing for sure, they do not want to make a habit out of this practice. This time 2,700 pages next time 5,000 filled with materials that no one knows. It’s an Alinsky mind game of using the system to destroy the system and I do wish someone could point that out to them so they can stop the mind games in their tracks.