SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare sometime this week

[dayman]

You will, of course, understand why I won't/don't.

 

 

THen educate yourself and learn something for a change. What I said there is absolute truth known across wide segments of society. The question was basically "how do courts work" in situation like this...that's the answer. Don't be a willful dumbass.

[WilliamCody]

So now companies that dont lose money to keep employees are greedy, too huh?

 

Not at all. But to suggest that it is the government's fault is simplistic. A corporate board must ultimately make its own decisions.

[Duck_dodgers007]

THen educate yourself and learn something for a change. What I said there is absolute truth known across wide segments of society. The question was basically "how do courts work" in situation like this...that's the answer. Don't be a willful dumbass.

[Joe Miner]

Not at all. But to suggest that it is the government's fault is simplistic. A corporate board must ultimately make its own decisions.

 

Also a bit simplistic.

[Juror#8]

Question: have there been other laws that lack a 'severability clause' that have had a portion of the law struck down (section dealing w/ States' Medicaid) but the rest of the law remains valid?

 

I wasn't aware of any, but am by no means a constitutional scholar or historian.

 

If there weren't, has the SCOTUS just given itself a 'line item veto' of sorts?

 

It happens in contracts, however I haven't had time to research the nuances in a legislation context. I couldn't imagine that it would operate much differently than it would in the instance of a bilateral arrangement between two contracting entities; essentially the same principle is at work.

 

I'll look on the legisltation side more later but a cursory search of the good ole Lexis Nexis reveals on the contract side:

 

LOCAL NO. 234 OF UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA

v.

HENLEY & BECKWITH, Inc.

 

The dispositive language is:

 

"As to when an illegal portion of a bilateral contract may or may not be eliminated leaving the remainder of the contract in force and effect, the authorities hold generally that a contract should be treated as entire when, by a consideration of its terms, nature, and purpose, each and all of its parts appear to be interdependent and common to one another and to the consideration.

 

Whether a contract is entire or divisible depends upon the intention of the parties. Ireland v. Craggs, 5 Cir., 56 F.2d 785. And this is a matter which may be determined "by a fair construction of the terms and provisions of the contract itself, and by the subject matter to which it has reference.

 

...a bilateral contract is severable where the disputed portion of the contract does not go to its essence, and where, with the illegal portion eliminated, there still remains of the contract valid legal promises on one side which are wholly supported by valid legal promises on the other. Williston on Contracts, rev. ed., Vol. 6, sec. 1782."

 

 

You probably don't have access to American Jurisprudence texts - but if you can or do, check out Am Jur, Contracts sec(s) 315-316.

[B-Man]

From Mitt Romney's response to today's ruling;

 

“What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States,” he said. “And that is, I will act to repeal Obamacare.”

 

 

“Let’s make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do,” Romney continued. “What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constiution. What they did not do is say that Obamacare is good law, or good policy. Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.”

 

 

 

Toward the end of his remarks — which lasted only a few minutes — Romney emphasized the economic fallout that would occur if Obamacare was left in place.

 

 

“If we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace Obamacare,” he declared. “That is my mission. That is our work, and I’m asking the people of America to join me.”

 

 

 

“If you don’t want the course President Obama has put us on, if you want instead a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort,” Romney added. “Help us. Help us defeat Obamacare, help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and is killing jobs across this great country.”

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

A corporate board must ultimately make its own decisions.

Even if the only decision a board can make is to comply with yet another government regulation?

[Duck_dodgers007]

From Mitt Romney's response to today's ruling;

 

 

 

.

Oh brother, Romney to repeal Romneycare? Ya, ok

 

 

RINO

[3rdnlng]

Stay classy, my friend:

 

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/classy-dnc-director-new-media-outreach-director-react-to-obamacare-decision-constitutional-bitches-take-that-mothers/

[WilliamCody]

Also a bit simplistic.

 

Of course it is. As I have said at least once above, regulations provide a matrix within which corporate decisions must be made.

 

Even if the only decision a board can make is to comply with yet another government regulation?

 

I'm actually inclined to think the real question would be who can we hire to help us get around said regulation.

[Joe Miner]

I'm actually inclined to think the real question would be who can we hire to help us get around said regulation.

 

 

Usually you just hire the people that write the legislation...

[dayman]

It happens in contracts, however I haven't had time to research the nuances in a legislation context. I couldn't imagine that it would operate much differently than it would in the instance of a bilateral arrangement between two contracting entities; essentially the same principle is at work.

 

I'll look on the legisltation side more later but a cursory search of the good ole Lexis Nexis reveals on the contract side:

 

LOCAL NO. 234 OF UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA

v.

HENLEY & BECKWITH, Inc.

 

The dispositive language is:

 

"As to when an illegal portion of a bilateral contract may or may not be eliminated leaving the remainder of the contract in force and effect, the authorities hold generally that a contract should be treated as entire when, by a consideration of its terms, nature, and purpose, each and all of its parts appear to be interdependent and common to one another and to the consideration.

 

Whether a contract is entire or divisible depends upon the intention of the parties. Ireland v. Craggs, 5 Cir., 56 F.2d 785. And this is a matter which may be determined "by a fair construction of the terms and provisions of the contract itself, and by the subject matter to which it has reference.

 

...a bilateral contract is severable where the disputed portion of the contract does not go to its essence, and where, with the illegal portion eliminated, there still remains of the contract valid legal promises on one side which are wholly supported by valid legal promises on the other. Williston on Contracts, rev. ed., Vol. 6, sec. 1782."

 

 

You probably don't have access to American Jurisprudence texts - but if you can or do, check out Am Jur, Contracts sec(s) 315-316.

 

To find an example directly analogous to this wouldn't be hard I may look but it would take some searching. But off the top of anyone's head...Marbury v. Madison the most famous case in American history...you need look no further than that for the principle example of the form over substance exercise courts regularly engage in as to the constitution, legislative materials, contracts, conveyances of interests in land and the drafting of wills(the most common example where you need a drafter who knows what he's doing)...it's a matter of course.

[Taro T]

THen educate yourself and learn something for a change. What I said there is absolute truth known across wide segments of society. The question was basically "how do courts work" in situation like this...that's the answer. Don't be a willful dumbass.

Sorry, but a partisan hack saying 'trust me' doesn't cause me to automatically trust them.

 

EDIT: Much like your buddy flj2nd stating essentially 'it's the exact same thing they did in the Arizona immigration case,' doesn't make me automatically believe them. Especially when he was flat out wrong. You're posting here and stating 'trust me' when you have displayed no credetials to cause me to trust you wastes both our time.

 

I was hoping that somebody with a legal background might opine on the original question. You admit yourself that finding the answer 'would take some searching;' when there are several lawyers already on this board, why not ask the opinion of an expert who might be able to point me towards some good examples?

 

How exactly does you saying 'trust me' make ME the lazy one?

Edited June 28, 2012 by Taro T

[Juror#8]

Question: have there been other laws that lack a 'severability clause' that have had a portion of the law struck down (section dealing w/ States' Medicaid) but the rest of the law remains valid?I wasn't aware of any, but am by no means a constitutional scholar or historian.

 

If there weren't, has the SCOTUS just given itself a 'line item veto' of sorts?

 

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)

 

http://pcaobus.org/News/Releases/Pages/06282010_SupremeCourtDecision.aspx

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-861.ZS.html

 

Edit: Dispositive quote also revealing progeny (and as I anticipated, these all allude to basic contract principles):

 

"The unconstitutional tenure provisions are severable from the remainder of the statute. Because “[t]he unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not necessarily defeat or affect the validity of its remaining provisions,” Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Okla. , 286 U. S. 210 , the “normal rule” is “that partial … invalidation is the required course,” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. , 472 U. S. 491 ."

Edited June 28, 2012 by Juror#8

[Taro T]

It happens in contracts, however I haven't had time to research the nuances in a legislation context. I couldn't imagine that it would operate much differently than it would in the instance of a bilateral arrangement between two contracting entities; essentially the same principle is at work.

 

I'll look on the legisltation side more later but a cursory search of the good ole Lexis Nexis reveals on the contract side:

 

LOCAL NO. 234 OF UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA

v.

HENLEY & BECKWITH, Inc.

 

The dispositive language is:

 

"As to when an illegal portion of a bilateral contract may or may not be eliminated leaving the remainder of the contract in force and effect, the authorities hold generally that a contract should be treated as entire when, by a consideration of its terms, nature, and purpose, each and all of its parts appear to be interdependent and common to one another and to the consideration.

 

Whether a contract is entire or divisible depends upon the intention of the parties. Ireland v. Craggs, 5 Cir., 56 F.2d 785. And this is a matter which may be determined "by a fair construction of the terms and provisions of the contract itself, and by the subject matter to which it has reference.

 

...a bilateral contract is severable where the disputed portion of the contract does not go to its essence, and where, with the illegal portion eliminated, there still remains of the contract valid legal promises on one side which are wholly supported by valid legal promises on the other. Williston on Contracts, rev. ed., Vol. 6, sec. 1782."

 

 

You probably don't have access to American Jurisprudence texts - but if you can or do, check out Am Jur, Contracts sec(s) 315-316.

Thanks for the info and also for the additional post.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Taro T

[B-Man]

Stay classy, my friend:

 

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/classy-dnc-director-new-media-outreach-director-react-to-obamacare-decision-constitutional-bitches-take-that-mothers/

 

 

and this one directed towards Justice Thomas.

 

Twitchy

 

.

[Juror#8]

To find an example directly analogous to this wouldn't be hard I may look but it would take some searching. But off the top of anyone's head...Marbury v. Madison the most famous case in American history...you need look no further than that for the principle example of the form over substance exercise courts regularly engage in as to the constitution, legislative materials, contracts, conveyances of interests in land and the drafting of wills(the most common example where you need a drafter who knows what he's doing)...it's a matter of course.

 

Thankfully there is one on point - I haven't read the progeny but it appears as if there are a few actually. You're correct, though, in that on point examples are few and far between. The precedent that 'Free Enterprise' cites to is a 100 year old case if I remember correctly.

[Duck_dodgers007]

Nullification really is the only option that I can see. Senate only needs 51 votes to repeal Obamacare, but they will never do it, not even with a Republican majority. Hiding behind supreme court decisions is a great way to avoid confronting hot button issues. As with Roe V. Wade, we'll be told that the solution is to appoint a majority of conservative supreme court justices to overturn the Obamacare decision. This will never happen of course, thus giving federal lawmakers the luxury of avoiding the issue forever.

[dayman]

Actually now that I think about it just look at the medicaid portion of this opinion released today. The Fed can apportion money on condition they spend it a certain way, however the Fed cannot compel the states to regulate something. So what was the holding? The Fed can refrain from giving the additional money set up for the Medcaid expansion if a state decides not to comply with the ACA expansion standards but it cannot pull out the existing medicaid funding the stats were already getting.

 

The Fed argument was that Medicaid is medicaid and it's a reform of the program and if they don't want to want to spend the MEDICAID money the way we apportion it they don't get it...the court said "no"...that's unreasonably harsh and would result in compelling states into compliance b/c no state could reasonably turn that down there is no "real choice" so in this instance the "substance" of that argument is that it is compelling states to regulate, despite the "form" being that they still have the choice as to all Medicaid funding. That just shows how this sort of analysis is pervasive throughout ALL law, this is how legal analysis is done routinely in all areas.

 

Not only does this general principle happen all throughout history in all sorts of contexts, it happened multiple times in this one opinion.

[Juror#8]

Thanks for the info and also for the additional post.

 

No problem.