• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amy Coney Barrett on Severability

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
47,390
Reaction score
16,499
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I was looking over ACB testimony last week and was struck by her interchange with one of my Senators - DiFi - on her views of severability ability.

Specifically this passage:
Barrett: I think the doctrine of severability as it’s been described by the Court, you know, serves a valuable function of trying not to undo your work when you wouldn’t want a court to undo your work. Severability strives to look at a statue as a whole and say, would Congress have considered this provision so vital that, kind in the Jenga game, pulling it out, Congress wouldn’t want the statute anymore? So it’s designed to effectuate your intent. But — severability is designed to say well, does Congress still want the statute to stand even with this provision gone? Would Congress have still passed the same statute without it? So I think insofar as it tries to effectuate Congress would have wanted, it’s the Court and Congress working hand-in-hand.

As I read this, it seems to me that that category 5 shit storm the loony left spun up about how ACB was singlehandedly going to destroy Obamacare and take healthcare from ten gazillion people is bogus. The bolded sentences are the critical point, IMHO. The mandates were intended to force people to buy insurance but people did so without coercion as well. So, the answer to her questions is a resounding "YES".

Even though O-care is a far left program - it WAS the law congress passed and likely would have even without the mandates. I'd bet she votes for severability.
 
I was looking over ACB testimony last week and was struck by her interchange with one of my Senators - DiFi - on her views of severability ability.

Specifically this passage:


As I read this, it seems to me that that category 5 shit storm the loony left spun up about how ACB was singlehandedly going to destroy Obamacare and take healthcare from ten gazillion people is bogus. The bolded sentences are the critical point, IMHO. The mandates were intended to force people to buy insurance but people did so without coercion as well. So, the answer to her questions is a resounding "YES".

Even though O-care is a far left program - it WAS the law congress passed and likely would have even without the mandates. I'd bet she votes for severability.

Amy Barrett is an untrustworthy liar. It would be reckless to gamble the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans over your cheap political point.
 
Amy Barrett is an untrustworthy liar. It would be reckless to gamble the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans over your cheap political point.
Thanks for the mindless political effluvia. Ironically, you're getting ready to, or have already voted for the biggest untrustworthy liar imaginable.
 
Amy Barrett is an untrustworthy liar. It would be reckless to gamble the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans over your cheap political point.
Please provide your proof of her lies.
 
Republicans will be disappointed when she's is a justice.
 
Thanks for the mindless political effluvia. Ironically, you're getting ready to, or have already voted for the biggest untrustworthy liar imaginable.

Nice projection. :)
 
Republicans will be disappointed when she's is a justice.
IF she does her job correctly that's probably true. If she were a rubber stamp it would, however, be more disappointing.
 
I was looking over ACB testimony last week and was struck by her interchange with one of my Senators - DiFi - on her views of severability ability.

Specifically this passage:


As I read this, it seems to me that that category 5 shit storm the loony left spun up about how ACB was singlehandedly going to destroy Obamacare and take healthcare from ten gazillion people is bogus. The bolded sentences are the critical point, IMHO. The mandates were intended to force people to buy insurance but people did so without coercion as well. So, the answer to her questions is a resounding "YES".

Even though O-care is a far left program - it WAS the law congress passed and likely would have even without the mandates. I'd bet she votes for severability.
How is the concept of severability not a version of legislating from the bench? If the law was written incorrectly, it isnt the benches job to rewrite it to fix it. It should be ruled as null and void in its current state and sent back to the legislature to be rewritten and passed again. Her answer concerns me.
 
How is the concept of severability not a version of legislating from the bench? If.tje law was written incorrectly, it isnt the benches job to rewrite it to fix it. It should be ruled as null and void in its current state and sent back to the legislature to be rewritten and passed again. Her answer concerns me.
You'll have to take that up with a legal scholar.
 
I really dont need to at all. I have become use to holding a minority opinion, lol
From a lay person perspective it makes sense - if the law contains some nonessential provision that doesn't meet constitutional standard and is not critical to the purpose of the law, it make sense to disallow it.
 
From a lay person perspective it makes sense - if the law contains some nonessential provision that doesn't meet constitutional standard and is not critical to the purpose of the law, it make sense to disallow it.
Its not the responsibility of the judge to determine if something is essential or not. The legislator determined it was, enough to include it in the law. That is what we elect them to do. Imo.
 
I was looking over ACB testimony last week and was struck by her interchange with one of my Senators - DiFi - on her views of severability ability.

Specifically this passage:


As I read this, it seems to me that that category 5 shit storm the loony left spun up about how ACB was singlehandedly going to destroy Obamacare and take healthcare from ten gazillion people is bogus. The bolded sentences are the critical point, IMHO. The mandates were intended to force people to buy insurance but people did so without coercion as well. So, the answer to her questions is a resounding "YES".

Even though O-care is a far left program - it WAS the law congress passed and likely would have even without the mandates. I'd bet she votes for sever-ability.
Democrats are crying for more ultra liberal judges. I don't understand how people watch the hearings and not think ACB is not highly qualified. It's about politics. The democrats want very liberal judges who will change things that they cannot achieve by the vote of the people. Nobody believes the democrats would not be nominating and voting on a liberal democrat nominee if the situation was exactly reversed. The events that have happened just turned in the favor of the republicans and that's just life. We are still 3 months from the end of the Presidents term and the term of Congress. Is Congress or the President supposed to stop working? If so then we don't need any bills proposed by Nancy and the democrats.
 
Even though O-care is a far left program - it WAS the law congress passed and likely would have even without the mandates. I'd bet she votes for severability.

Close, that's what any court should conclude. That's what every serious legal scholar, right and left, has opined the courts should conclude. There's never been any serious doubt that by precedent and by obvious Congressional intent the individual mandate should be severable from the rest of the law, even if you buy the dubious claims to standing or that a $0 penalty renders the mandate unconstitutional. This lawsuit has been widely viewed as frivolous and meritless since it was introduced.

Here's the problem: with wingnut ideologues stacking the courts, it doesn't matter what the courts should conclude. We've gone through two wingnut courts and all the way to the SCOTUS because rightwing judges have not concluded what every reasonable observer thought they should have. And so health care for tens of millions of Americans, and ultimately for a hundred million more with pre-existing conditions, hangs in the balance on the slim hope that there aren't enough right wingnut ideologues on the SCOTUS to replicate what the right wingnut ideologues in the lower federal courts have already done.

Before RBG died there likely were not, and it seemed likely the SCOTUS would conclude what it should. But now the race is on to get a right wingnut ideologue on the Court in time to hear the case. The case that would mark the conclusion to Trump and the GOP's decade-long crusade to get rid of pre-existing condition protections. Hmm, I wonder which way Trump and the GOP expect ACB to rule?

The right has been trying to take away millions of Americans' health care for a long time, and with ACB on the Court they're likely to finally get their wish.
 
Back
Top Bottom