Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (492867)	6/27/2012 12:00:47 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	4 Recommendations Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 793637

I thought that I read that the bill has no severability clause. Therefore if one part of the bill is struck down, all parts of the bill are struck down.

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (492867)	6/27/2012 12:01:38 PM
From: ManyMoose	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793637

Scalia was brilliant with his statement on the decision. Too bad we don't have more like him on the court.

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (492867)	6/27/2012 12:39:46 PM
From: Bill	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793637

The administration argued in the FL district that the mandate was integral to the funding mechanism for the entire bill. They further argued the entire bill would have to be rewritten if the mandate is cancelled. That's one reason judge Vinson ruled the entire bill unconstitutional. If the USSC rules against the mandate, the cleanest thing would be to dump all of it. If they let everything except the mandate stand, I assume they are in essence affirming that nothing else contested in the bill is unconstitutional. Romney and the republicans should move to repeal it even if it's deemed constitutional. It's bad law, and by now everyone knows it.