Ok....since their is no sever ability, does SCOTUS actually have a chance to strike the whole law down? I know I’m getting my hopes up. Just askin’
Oh, one of those rascals will find severability, and rename it.
I think there unfortunately is precedent for a law without a severability clause being allowed to stand even after a portion of it was overturned. However, I don’t know the details, and possibly it was an entirely different situation.
This whole law is probably riddled with technical flaws, since it was inserted in the shell of a perfectly innocuous, short bill sent up by Congress (requesting something like an extension of some VA or military benefit, IIRC). The earlier language of the bill, except for the preamble, was simply removed and the Dems stuffed 2000 incoherent pages of garbage into it and passed it. On Christmas Eve. Hard to believe that’s legal, but it is.
Severability is not an issue. The contraception mandate is not in the law. It is in the regulations promulgated under the law.
Regulation can be declared unconstitutional. Then it’s back to the drawing board for the regulators.
My question as well. Since the "individual TAX (mandate)" was an integral, explicit part of the law, striking that down should have invalidated the entire law. The contraception mandate, however, seems more like an implementation decision not explicitly mentioned in the law, and can probably be struck down without invalidating the entire law (damn it!!!)
Just my take.
To what would severability be applied to? The ACA Law? Or, 0’s version of it (key: It’s not on paper)?