I agree that one judge wrote this in his opinion, but it is outside the legal mainstream.
Your emergence in the right wing media has given you a distorted view of reality. I know the usual suspects parrot this case over and over, but again it is outside the mainstream. For instance the Virginia Federal Judge who ruled against the mandate only threw the mandate out. That case is at the Federal Appellate court on Tuesday.
Your emergence in the right wing media has given you a distorted view of reality. I know the usual suspects parrot this case over and over, but again it is outside the mainstream. For instance the Virginia Federal Judge who ruled against the mandate only threw the mandate out. That case is at the Federal Appellate court on Tuesday.
Quote
Originally posted by: hoops2
"Nope, that is merely wishful thinking by the tea baggers sort of like the thought defaulting on the debt wouldn’t have any consequences. As legal matter it just isn't even within mainstream legal thought to invalidate the whole thing."
Normally maliber would be correct but this law is different in the way it was written
As District Judge Roger Vinson explains in his ruling, the bill did not pass with a standard severability clause, which typically bills like this would have. That allows a judge to split off unconstitutional pieces from a bill in litigation while leaving the rest of the bill, having passed Constitutional muster, intact. The severability clause is a feature of almost all major legislation in Congress, and it was in the ACA at one point, but through the different versions, somewhere down the line, it was excised. This gave Judge Vinson the power to decide on his own whether or not to sever the individual mandate from the bill. A previous district judge, Henry Hudson in Virginia, declined, ruling only that the mandate itself was unconstitutional. But Vinson went further, as he explains
Originally posted by: hoops2
"Nope, that is merely wishful thinking by the tea baggers sort of like the thought defaulting on the debt wouldn’t have any consequences. As legal matter it just isn't even within mainstream legal thought to invalidate the whole thing."
Normally maliber would be correct but this law is different in the way it was written
As District Judge Roger Vinson explains in his ruling, the bill did not pass with a standard severability clause, which typically bills like this would have. That allows a judge to split off unconstitutional pieces from a bill in litigation while leaving the rest of the bill, having passed Constitutional muster, intact. The severability clause is a feature of almost all major legislation in Congress, and it was in the ACA at one point, but through the different versions, somewhere down the line, it was excised. This gave Judge Vinson the power to decide on his own whether or not to sever the individual mandate from the bill. A previous district judge, Henry Hudson in Virginia, declined, ruling only that the mandate itself was unconstitutional. But Vinson went further, as he explains
