Judge Holds Catherine Herridge in Contempt Over Confidential Sources Case
New Poll Shows the Left's Pro-Hamas Antics Have Backfired
Congress Extends Government Funding Another Week to Stop Partial Shutdown
We Know Who Trump Wants as the New Senate GOP Leader
Republicans Choose Senator Katie Britt to Deliver SOTU Response
House Moving Forward With Resolution Holding Sec. Blinken in Contempt of Congress
KJP Defends Biden Not Taking a Cognitive Test, Claims the Demands of His...
Kathy Hochul Has the Green Light to Give State Jobs to Illegal Migrants
Now Here's How Trump's Visit to the Southern Border Went
Trump Releases Ad Focusing on Georgia Nursing Student's Death By Illegal Immigrant
Joe Biden's Border Visit Went Just As Expected
'Here We Are Again': House Passes Fourth CR This Fiscal Year
Recent Poll Is Looking Pretty Darn Good for Donald Trump
Federal Appeals Court Allows Law Banning So-Called Transgender 'Care' for Children to Take...
'Dire:' New Polling of Seven Battleground States Shows Biden Trailing in This Many...
Tipsheet

Quick Takes on Severability From Inside the Courtroom

On day three of the Obamacare hearings, the Supreme Court took on the question of severability. Can the individual mandate be struck down by itself, or must the whole law come with it?

Advertisement

The Justices are torn on severability – do they have the power to strike down pieces of the law, just because they may cause financial chaos? Is their job only to get rid of the unconstitutional part of the law and leave Congress to fix the rest?

They don’t seem keen on knocking it all down, although Justice Kennedy did question whether it’s more of an abuse of power to let some of the law stand that might have such detrimental financial consequences. In other words, he asked, is taking the middle ground, and picking out pieces of the law on their factual consequences too much power for the Court to assume?
 
Justice Kagan kept using the phrase, “Isn’t half a loaf better than no loaf at all,” suggesting that she might be willing to side with the federal government.
 
There is also a battle over congressional intent, but Chief Justice Roberts seemed especially skeptical of the idea that the Justices had the power to “carry out” congressional intent. Rather, the Court’s job is to allow Congress to retain as much power as possible, without letting them abuse it. The mandate, then, may be abuse, but who can say that the Court is right to decide what Congress would want? That is the job of Congress, after all. If they don’t like the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions, shouldn’t the Court let them repeal them?
Advertisement
 
On the other hand, some of them, particularly Justices Kennedy and Kagan, seem concerned with the financial reality of letting everything else stand. Perhaps, for them, the facts of the case are inescapable.
 
All in all, the Court is as much deciding the extent of its own power to shape policy as it is deciding how much of this law may stay.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement