Little-Acorn
06-07-2012, 08:31 PM
I hope they strike the whole thing down. But I have been wondering something. If the Supremes first decide that the mandate is unconstitutional, they then have to decide whether to let the rest of Obamacare stand, or to strike down all of Obamacare.
I've heard three different explanations so far, all different:
1.) If the bill contains language saying "If part of this law is struck down, the rest still stays in effect", then the Supremes might strike down only the mandate and let the rest stand. (Note: Obamacare does NOT contain that language. That's why Judge Roger Vinson of the District Court, struck down the entire thing after finding the mandate unconstitutional)
2.) The Supremes don't so much look for that language. Instead, they try to figure out the following: Would Congress have written the rest of the bill as is, without the mandate, if they had been told that the mandate was definitely not allowable? Or would the absence of a mandate have made Congress write it substantially differently, or possibly not write it at all?
3.) The Supremes would try to decide: Would this bill work without the mandate, about the same as it would work with the mandate?
I understand that when the bill was being written, the Obama lawyers wanted to include that language about leaving the rest in place if part of the law were struck down. But the insurance companies balked - they didn't want to be stuck with paying for millions of people who were sick a LOT, if healthy people didn't have to pay in too. So the language was eventually taken out.
Anybody know what line of inquiry the Supreme Court justices might follow, if at first they decide the mandate must go?
I've heard three different explanations so far, all different:
1.) If the bill contains language saying "If part of this law is struck down, the rest still stays in effect", then the Supremes might strike down only the mandate and let the rest stand. (Note: Obamacare does NOT contain that language. That's why Judge Roger Vinson of the District Court, struck down the entire thing after finding the mandate unconstitutional)
2.) The Supremes don't so much look for that language. Instead, they try to figure out the following: Would Congress have written the rest of the bill as is, without the mandate, if they had been told that the mandate was definitely not allowable? Or would the absence of a mandate have made Congress write it substantially differently, or possibly not write it at all?
3.) The Supremes would try to decide: Would this bill work without the mandate, about the same as it would work with the mandate?
I understand that when the bill was being written, the Obama lawyers wanted to include that language about leaving the rest in place if part of the law were struck down. But the insurance companies balked - they didn't want to be stuck with paying for millions of people who were sick a LOT, if healthy people didn't have to pay in too. So the language was eventually taken out.
Anybody know what line of inquiry the Supreme Court justices might follow, if at first they decide the mandate must go?