|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
[Severability] Argument recap: A lift for the mandate?
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | Brandonius Maximus |
| Last Edited | Brandonius Maximus Mar 28, 2012 11:28am |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Analysis |
| Author | Lyle Denniston |
| News Date | Wednesday, March 28, 2012 05:00:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that. A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress. They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform. The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself.
The dilemma could be captured perfectly in two separate comments by Justice Antonin Scalia — first, that it “just couldn’t be right” that all of the myriad provisions of the law unrelated to the mandate had to fall with it, but, later, that if the Court were to strike out the mandate, “then the statute’s gone.” Much of the lively argument focused on just what role the Court would more properly perform in trying to sort out the consequences of nullifying the requirement that virtually every American have health insurance by the year 2014. |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
