SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare sometime this week

[dayman]

I know nobody cares but here is the lexis summary of SEVERABILITY, 72 N.C.L. Rev. 203:

 

… When a court holds a provision of a statute unconstitutional, a question remains regarding the validity of the remainder of the statute. … For example, severability becomes an issue when: (1) a party challenges an entire statute, arguing that if any provision of the statute is unconstitutional and nonseverable, the rest of the statute is ineffective; (2) a party argues that a statutory provision is invalid because it is nonseverable from another, purportedly unconstitutional provision of the statute; (3) a party contends that an ap plication of a statutory provision is invalid because it is nonseverable from other, unconstitutional applications of the statute; (4) a party argues that a statute is nonseverable, and therefore, another party's constitutional challenge to a provision of the statute would preclude that party from receiving any relief from other provisions of the statute; and (5) a party challenges a statute as being either constitutionally underinclusive or overinclusive. … It is improper to imply such a limitation on the effect of a severability clause because the ability of a statute to continue to function absent an unconstitutional provision is itself really a question of legislative intent. … The Court's recent statutory construction cases suggest two types of general rules in the severability context: a presumption of severability or a clear statement rule. …

 

...later on in the article...

 

If a statute contains a severability clause (or a nonseverability clause), such an explicit statement should be construed according to its plain meaning. If the statutory text is silent regarding severability, then the structure of the act, its purpose, and the legislative history should be consulted, although such sources are often inconclusive about severability. In addition, there should be a general rule favoring severability.

 

Severability is the general rule, severability clauses merely reinforce legislative intent.

 

...and here's another excerpt providing case law...

 

Alaska Airlines v. Brock represents the Supreme Court's most recent attempt to fashion a definitive test for severability. In Alaska Airlines, several airlines challenged section 43 of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which imposed a duty to hire certain protected employees who have a first right of hire by any airline hiring employees with their qualifications. 31 Section 43 authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate regulations to implement the program, but section 43 also contained a legislative veto authorizing either house of Congress to disapprove such regulations. 32 The airlines argued that section 43 should fall in its entirety because the legislative veto was nonseverable from the other parts of that section. 33

 

A unanimous Court disagreed. The Court first described its general test for determining severability. It began by stating that a court should refrain from invalidating more of the statute than is necessary. 34 Next the Court reaffirmed the Champlin test. Under this test, a statute is severable if: (1) the legislature would have enacted the remaining provisions of the statute without the invalid provisions, and (2) the remaining provisions of the statute can function independently of the invalid provision. 35 Faced with a legislative veto, which by its very nature is separate from the operation of the substantive provisions of a statute, the Court refined the Champlin test to inquire whether the statute will function in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress. 36 Finally, the Court said that a severability clause cre [211] ates a presumption that a statute is severable, but the absence of such a clause does not create a presumption of nonseverability.

Edited June 28, 2012 by TheNewBills

[IDBillzFan]

First saw Romney brought in over $100,000 in donations within the first 30 minutes of the SCOTUS decision, and now read it just went over a million.

 

Hell, you couldn't raise that much money that fast if you were a 68-year-old bus monitor getting berated by middle schoolers.

[Taro T]

I know nobody cares but here is the lexis summary of SEVERABILITY, 72 N.C.L. Rev. 203:

 

… When a court holds a provision of a statute unconstitutional, a question remains regarding the validity of the remainder of the statute. … For example, severability becomes an issue when: (1) a party challenges an entire statute, arguing that if any provision of the statute is unconstitutional and nonseverable, the rest of the statute is ineffective; (2) a party argues that a statutory provision is invalid because it is nonseverable from another, purportedly unconstitutional provision of the statute; (3) a party contends that an ap plication of a statutory provision is invalid because it is nonseverable from other, unconstitutional applications of the statute; (4) a party argues that a statute is nonseverable, and therefore, another party's constitutional challenge to a provision of the statute would preclude that party from receiving any relief from other provisions of the statute; and (5) a party challenges a statute as being either constitutionally underinclusive or overinclusive. … It is improper to imply such a limitation on the effect of a severability clause because the ability of a statute to continue to function absent an unconstitutional provision is itself really a question of legislative intent. … The Court's recent statutory construction cases suggest two types of general rules in the severability context: a presumption of severability or a clear statement rule. …

 

...later on in the article...

 

If a statute contains a severability clause (or a nonseverability clause), such an explicit statement should be construed according to its plain meaning. If the statutory text is silent regarding severability, then the structure of the act, its purpose, and the legislative history should be consulted, although such sources are often inconclusive about severability. In addition, there should be a general rule favoring severability.

 

Severability is the general rule, severability clauses merely reinforce legislative intent.

 

...and here's another excerpt providing case law...

 

Alaska Airlines v. Brock represents the Supreme Court's most recent attempt to fashion a definitive test for severability. In Alaska Airlines, several airlines challenged section 43 of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which imposed a duty to hire certain protected employees who have a first right of hire by any airline hiring employees with their qualifications. 31 Section 43 authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate regulations to implement the program, but section 43 also contained a legislative veto authorizing either house of Congress to disapprove such regulations. 32 The airlines argued that section 43 should fall in its entirety because the legislative veto was nonseverable from the other parts of that section. 33

 

A unanimous Court disagreed. The Court first described its general test for determining severability. It began by stating that a court should refrain from invalidating more of the statute than is necessary. 34 Next the Court reaffirmed the Champlin test. Under this test, a statute is severable if: (1) the legislature would have enacted the remaining provisions of the statute without the invalid provisions, and (2) the remaining provisions of the statute can function independently of the invalid provision. 35 Faced with a legislative veto, which by its very nature is separate from the operation of the substantive provisions of a statute, the Court refined the Champlin test to inquire whether the statute will function in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress. 36 Finally, the Court said that a severability clause cre [211] ates a presumption that a statute is severable, but the absence of such a clause does not create a presumption of nonseverability.

Thank you.

[Koko78]

I'm going to laugh hard if Romney takes office and issues an executive order directing the IRS not to enforce the law to collect that "tax". You know, Obama-style.

[B-Man]

I'm going to laugh hard if Romney takes office and issues an executive order directing the IRS not to enforce the law to collect that "tax". You know, Obama-style.

 

 

That won't work Koko, it will still be in effect, but without funding.

 

 

A much more thorough way of dealing with it is, simply granting a "waiver" to everyone as the administration has already done for over 1300 groups.

 

Government Accountability Office

 

.

[Duck_dodgers007]

That won't work Koko, it will still be in effect, but without funding.

 

 

A much more thorough way of dealing with it is, simply granting a "waiver" to everyone as the administration has already done for over 1300 groups.

 

Government Accountability Office

 

.

And the liberals will cry that someone, somewhere did not get to see a doctor and Romney will back down, just like a good little moderate is suppose to do

[Dante]

I guess our last chance is Romney. IF he wins I hope he honors his word. I don't even care for the guy. It's like having to bet on the Cowboys in a Super Bowl over the Pats.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Dante

[Juror#8]

I guess our last chance is Romney. IF he wins I hope he honors his word. I don't even care for the guy. It's like having to bet on the Cowboys in a Super Bowl over the Pats.

 

Agreed.

 

But I hope Romney fails miserably in trying to repeal the ACA. We're finally moving in a good direction with respect to healthcare reform. It's a wonderful day! Here's to iterations and improvements!

 

Great job Obama!

Edited June 28, 2012 by Juror#8

[Joe Miner]

Agreed.

 

But I hope Romney fails miserably in trying to repeal the ACA. We're finally moving in a good direction with respect to healthcare reform. It's a wonderful day! Here's to iterations and improvements!

 

Great job Obama!

 

Yes, gov't iterations work out well.

 

Look how SS and Medicare have vastly improved since their beginnings.

 

Also education, and the tax code.

 

All things the gov't continues to improve.

 

You !@#$ing idiot.

[erynthered]

More ammo.

 

 

 

 

The Biggest tax increase in the history of America.

[/dev/null]

So I currently have health insurance thru my employer

I have not been to a doctor in years and am in good health and carry insurance for catastrophic coverage

 

As I read the bill there is a penalty of up to 2.5% of annual income for not carrying insurance. This is less than I pay for my employer provided coverage

 

Should I drop my health insurance coverage? If I get sick or something I can always go back later and pickup some coverage.

[dayman]

Agreed.

 

But I hope Romney fails miserably in trying to repeal the ACA. We're finally moving in a good direction with respect to healthcare reform. It's a wonderful day! Here's to iterations and improvements!

 

Great job Obama!

 

 

He can't repeal it but he won't admit that to the people of the nation. He would need majorities (perhaps super majority) in both houses and the presidency.

 

Indeed this was a great victory for Obama. Now we can get going with it, alter it as it needs to be, the Republicans need to accept it and not try to destroy it or make it fail and just alter it as problems come up. This is law now. This is not going away. Don't hurt the people by being retarded, just perform your legitimate function GOP Congressman and make the law better.

[erynthered]

No George it is not a tax increase.

 

Oh, Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally??

 

[Doc]

Went on the physician message boards. All I can say is, good luck finding a doctor and/or getting an appointment.

[Dante]

Agreed.

 

But I hope Romney fails miserably in trying to repeal the ACA. We're finally moving in a good direction with respect to healthcare reform. It's a wonderful day! Here's to iterations and improvements!

 

Great job Obama!

Oh #8 you little rascal. At first I thought you were on my side. Anyway, Juror, do you honestly it's ever a good policy for the government to control anything? Do they do anything efficiently or well? Anything that comes in on budget? Were talking another 18% or so of the economy under their control. To me this is the worst of options.

[B-Man]

Went on the physician message boards. All I can say is, good luck finding a doctor and/or getting an appointment.

 

 

Every physician I know (30 - 40) thinks the same way, including a few family members.

 

Whenever I have stated that over the past two years, the liberal critics just sneer and say "what else are they going to do?" and make remarks about greed.

 

 

 

We'll see.

 

 

 

.

[Dante]

He can't repeal it but he won't admit that to the people of the nation. He would need majorities (perhaps super majority) in both houses and the presidency.

 

Indeed this was a great victory for Obama. Now we can get going with it, alter it as it needs to be, the Republicans need to accept it and not try to destroy it or make it fail and just alter it as problems come up. This is law now. This is not going away. Don't hurt the people by being retarded, just perform your legitimate function GOP Congressman and make the law better.

Yes. Lets get on with destroying the country. Hopefully this energizes people even more and we will get a majority.

[Doc]

Every physician I know (30 - 40) thinks the same way, including a few family members.

 

Whenever I have stated that over the past two years, the liberal critics just sneer and say "what else are they going to do?" and make remarks about greed.

I've got one: expert witness for all the lawsuits against PA's and APRN's.

[dayman]

Oh #8 you little rascal. At first I thought you were on my side. Anyway, Juror, do you honestly it's ever a good policy for the government to control anything? Do they do anything efficiently or well? Anything that comes in on budget? Were talking another 18% or so of the economy under their control. To me this is the worst of options.

 

 

Every physician I know (30 - 40) thinks the same way, including a few family members.

 

Whenever I have stated that over the past two years, the liberal critics just sneer and say "what else are they going to do?" and make remarks about greed.

 

 

 

We'll see.

 

 

 

.

 

 

Primary care physicians win in this bill. Specialists should be angry but oh well. Poor doctors "good luck getting me to treat you" lol...what thing to say online.

 

Yes. Lets get on with destroying the country. Hopefully this energizes people even more and we will get a majority.

 

You should encourage your politicians to stop destroying Washington and get on doing work to implement and then further refine the bill.

[B-Large]

Went on the physician message boards. All I can say is, good luck finding a doctor and/or getting an appointment.

 

Medical Care is no different that anything else is life, its who you know and if you have leverage to get stuff done.

 

If you always want and appointment and someone on the inside to grease the gears for you, make a annual donation..... you can always call up your giving contact and ask them for help getting into providers... it works like a charm.

 

I don't make a donation because I work in a Hospital, but that is how you get IN and move to the front of the lines while everybody elese waits....

 

Yes, gov't iterations work out well.

 

Look how SS and Medicare have vastly improved since their beginnings.

 

Also education, and the tax code.

 

All things the gov't continues to improve.

 

You !@#$ing idiot.

 

they poll well as very popular programs....

 

 

as for ed and tax code, agree 100%