Broccoli

[Imran Siddiqui]

Without the mandate the other provisions now become unfunded and legislative intent can not be inferred that they would have survived otherwise, knowing they are unfunded.

According to Free Enterprise Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd that's not the standard. The standard is whether it is evident that without the unconstitutional section that Congress would not have enacted the constitutional sections. Considering that there were a number of folk who wanted to have the ACA without the individual mandate, I don't think that standard can apply. The presumption is very strong in favor of presumption.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The standard is whether it is evident that without the unconstitutional section that Congress would not have enacted the constitutional sections. Considering that there were a number of folk who wanted to have the ACA without the individual mandate, I don't think that standard can apply.

What evidence is there for that claim. The closeness of the overall pasage of the bill makes it seem exceedingly unlikely that no way the other provisions would have passed particularly after the election of Brown. Presumption seems to me extremely presumptuous.

[The Mad Monk]

Then please explain why they are debating whether they should strike down part or the whole if its such a no brainer? Also please explain why so many people are shocked by the idea that the whole thing could be struck down.

Because the law was passed as a single piece, and the portion in question is critical to the whole.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What evidence is there for that claim. The closeness of the overall pasage of the bill makes it seem exceedingly unlikely that no way the other provisions would have passed particularly after the election of Brown. Presumption seems to me extremely presumptuous.

I thought it was apparent that the closeness of the overall passage was due to the inclusion of an individual mandate and if it was taken out would have passed much more comfortably.

[Aeson]

Why not give Congress the right to show it, rather than have the court presume?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I did give you the cite that says the Court isn't all the fond of striking down Constitutional sections of a law along with the Unconstitutional ones.

[Aeson]

And once upon a time the Court wasn't all that fond of letting non-White males have rights either... but things can always change for the better

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I thought it was apparent that the closeness of the overall passage was due to the inclusion of an individual mandate and if it was taken out would have passed much more comfortably.

Again is there evidence, test votes or anything that would support this claim and in particular for the congressional body that passed the legislation at the time. Which portions would or would not have survivied is anyones guess.

[Felch]

I thought it was apparent that the closeness of the overall passage was due to the inclusion of an individual mandate and if it was taken out would have passed much more comfortably.

Without the individual mandate, the law becomes unworkable. I'm not going to pay inflated rates for insurance if I don't have to. And I'm not alone in that.

[The Mad Monk]

Just out of curiosity, how much is this challenge costing us?

[OzzyKP]

Because the law was passed as a single piece, and the portion in question is critical to the whole.

It is critical for parts of it. But not everything. I only half paid attention to the oral argument this time, but some of the focus was on the distinction between the heart of the bill vs. the periphery. The main parts of the bill (i.e. not denying coverage to folks with pre-existing conditions, etc) certainly rely on the individual mandate as a funding mechanism. And I think the lawyers for both sides were in favor of seeing them as a package that needs to be removed together. Other key parts, such as the exchanges, and the medicaid changes, and the requirements on employers were less reliant on the individual mandate. Clement certainly argued they were, and no doubt several justices were persuaded by that, maybe 5, maybe 3-4, I dunno.

But then, beyond all those key parts, is what they described as the periphery, which are all the small, mostly independent parts that really had nothing to do with the core of the bill or the mandate. I think it'd be silly to strike this stuff down as well. But, as previously noted, it'd put the Justices (or their law clerks, as Scalia pointed out) into the position of combing through this 2,700 page bill to decide what stays and what goes. Which would not only be a chore, it could be seen as a quasi-legislative function by the Court. But I imagine they can find an easier way of doing it. Strike down section 1 or something. Or just name the key parts they are striking down and let Congress figure out the rest. I think it is more likely that these "peripheral" elements of the bill will survive. But, who knows.

All I care about is getting that damn individual mandate struck down, I don't care about the rest.

[PLATO]

Or just name the key parts they are striking down and let Congress figure out the rest.

This is essentially what overturning the whole bill will do.

[kentonio]

Without the individual mandate, the law becomes unworkable. I'm not going to pay inflated rates for insurance if I don't have to. And I'm not alone in that.

So the Supreme Courts job now includes deciding whether laws passed by congress are likely to be popular with the public?

[kentonio]

Just out of curiosity, how much is this challenge costing us?

Probably about 20,000 lives a year.

[Dinner]

So the Supreme Courts job now includes deciding whether laws passed by congress are likely to be popular with the public?

Tell me about. It seems like the justices are in full on partisan politics mode instead of actually doing their jobs. It's Bush v Gore or Citizens United all over again. It's obvious that certain justices are trying to twist things to reach the ruling they want. Thomas's wife is even involved in the case and he spoke out in support of her efforts yet he gets to sit in judgement instead of recusing himself? What a load of horse ****.