It is interesting how some feel that the Supreme Court will be split by party lines on this decision, even though it is over a year away.

If their Honors simply pay attention to the law, AND the U.S. Constitution, then it may not be up to Justice Kennedy to 'break a tie."

THe 11th Cir. may well just forward this to the Supremes.

If they don't my guess is they will affirm the part that strikes down the individual mandate and reverse the part that strikes down the entire law.

I am really interested to learn why, and how legally, the Judge decided that the ENTIRE law must be struck down.

I wouldn't get happy too soon Apple. The decision will be appealed to the 11th circuit court and the Supreme Court does not have to accept an appeal.

... while I have been and still am against the mandate that requires everyone to purchase health insurance ... I am really interested to learn why, and how legally, the Judge decided that the ENTIRE law must be struck down. ...

Or, as olivant so succinctly put it...no severity clause.

Does anyone here see the Constitution as a "living document?"

I believe that this may get forwarded to the Supremes.




To be perfectly honest here, while I have been and still am against the mandate that requires everyone to purchase health insurance ( as our President Obama who was totally against a mandate once said "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house." ) I am not against the ENTIRE Law. There are some good things included in that law.


I am really interested to learn why, and how legally, the Judge decided that the ENTIRE law must be struck down. And I don't believe that his decision has anything to do with partisan politics.

The partisan part probably took place when our government officials originally voted on this, (for or against) without reading the entire content!


There has to be some kind of legal language that this Judge felt he could base this decision on.

Very interesting.

Keep living in your dreamworld, DT. Long as you're in a happy place, we're all happy for you.

There was no severability included. Now this is NOT required for Congressional Statutes but is normally included in most bills.

There is legal precedent for courts to only invalidate those sections of the law that they find unconstitutional (Canon of Constitutional Avoidance) but they are not required to hold to that precedent, especially when there is no severability explicitly included.

The closest analogy I can think of is making a business presentation but neglecting to have thought through completely one abstract point that you think is pretty minor. Your boss' boss -who doesn't like you anyway- zooms in on that minor point and proceeds to use it to eviscerate your argument in front of the entire management committee. The outcome may be incorrect by your POV but then again you left yourself open for that by not dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's".

As we discussed before I think, the constitutional question comes down to the basis for an individual mandate-Commerce/Necessary and proper- what exactly?

I don't think there is a constitutional basis for an individual mandate. I would have preferred single payer or public option. Even if those were foreclosed for political reasons there are constitutional methods to arrive at the same end- ie. tax breaks for insurance premiums, shorter enrollment schedules, etc.

The issue (and I don't necessarily think it's a left/right thing) is that this law seeks to claim Congressional Commerce Clause authority over inactivity. That is something that is new and different than what's happened in the past. The normal challenges to assertions of such authority have been made by people who were already unambiguously engaging in commerce-or at least activity (see Wickard).

Here the logic is tautological. If you are selling or buying something then you fall under the ability of Congress to regulate. If you are NOT selling or buying something then your lack of commerce is commerce and you STILL fall under Congress' ability to regulate. I think it's a bridge too far. I am not worried so much about this Congress or this President as I am concerned about the mischief that future leaders could use this for.

Thank you Lilo. It's nice to see that there are still people on these boards, such as yourself, who can give an educated reply and opinion, regardless if they agree with others or not, WITHOUT the sarcasm, the belittling and the personal attacks.

Well Lilo, so many SCOTUS opinions are a function of the majority's ideology. Take for example the Heller opinion regarding the gun ban in DC. It wasn't until one of the last few pages of that opinion that Scalia referenced Oringinal Intent. The rest of the opinion consisted simply of historical references.

While the individual mandate may not have precedent, it could reasonably derive it constitutionality from the Elastic Clause or the "general welfare" provision of Article I, Section 8.

And by the way, cases are not forwarded to SCOTUS; they are solicited through the "rule of four" and certiorari. If the case gets there and Justice Kagan recuses herself, then a tie vote will leave it with the 11th circuit court opinion.

NP DC! I abhor discourtesy, generally speaking.
Besides, there's no reason we can't be civil, is there?

Why would Justice Kagan recuse herself?

She was White House counsel and Solicitor General.