Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pinto

(106,886 posts)
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 03:26 PM Mar 2012

No constitutional scholar here, yet I disagree with Toobin's (CNN) assessment of justices' comments.

SCOTUS' struggle with the severability issue is just as likely to result in pulling the mandate from the law and leaving the rest to Congress to find funding, or, if a good case is made for constitutionality of the mandate, leaving the law as written.

Robert's comments today highlighted the dilemma, yet I didn't take it as a give on a decision.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No constitutional scholar here, yet I disagree with Toobin's (CNN) assessment of justices' comments. (Original Post) pinto Mar 2012 OP
As you said, you're not a constitutional scholar... regnaD kciN Mar 2012 #1
No. I would never presume to assess an MD's diagnosis, unless it was my own. And that would be pinto Mar 2012 #3
Literally anything can happen IMHO Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2012 #2
Tend to agree. pinto Mar 2012 #4
I doubt Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2012 #5
Could be, but considering how long the statute is, Congress should have included a severability JDPriestly Mar 2012 #6

regnaD kciN

(26,035 posts)
1. As you said, you're not a constitutional scholar...
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 03:55 PM
Mar 2012

You're a committed layperson with strong opinions. You may be right or you may be wrong, but isn't what you say a little like saying "I'm no doctor, but I think your doctor's diagnosis is utterly wrong"...?

pinto

(106,886 posts)
3. No. I would never presume to assess an MD's diagnosis, unless it was my own. And that would be
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 04:33 PM
Mar 2012

between my doc and I. And private.

This is a public discourse thing. We're all in it together, whatever our point of view.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,355 posts)
2. Literally anything can happen IMHO
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 04:29 PM
Mar 2012

The fact that they may have to decide between overturning the law in toto or upholding it in its entirety is probably going to work in our favor IMHO- unless they don't care if they are seen negatively for destroying an entire body of (badly needed) reforms. They may ultimately decide that they can find some wiggle room in the constitution that makes the mandate permissible rather than deep-sixing the entire thing. I know that it's easy to be cynical about SCOTUS, particularly after Bush V. Gore and Citizens United and most of the conservative justices will likely vote to kill it (i.e. Scalia, Thomas) but Kennedy and possibly even Roberts might actually vote to uphold it in the end. My prediction: 5-4 or 6-3 to uphold the law in its entirety. Bookmarking for later.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,355 posts)
5. I doubt
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 04:48 PM
Mar 2012

that Roberts would want the "distinction" of striking down ACA on his watch but, yeah, we'll see.........

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
6. Could be, but considering how long the statute is, Congress should have included a severability
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 06:35 PM
Mar 2012

clause.

There is probably a good chance that the Court will decide to sever sections that they claim are unconstitutional.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»No constitutional scholar...