On severing the individual mandate, and leaving the rest of O’care intact, here is Scalia:
Mr. Farr, let’s–let’s consider how–how your approach, severing as little as possible there–thereby increases the deference that we’re showing to–to Congress. It seems to me it puts Congress in–in this position: This Act is still in full effect. There is going to be this deficit that used to be made up by the mandatory coverage provision. All that money has to come from somewhere.
Meanwhile, in Congress….
You can’t repeal the rest of the Act because you’re not going to get 60 votes in the Senate to repeal the rest. It’s not a matter of enacting a new act. You’ve got to get 60 votes to repeal it. So the rest of the Act is going to be the law.
So you’re just put to the choice of I guess bankrupting insurance companies and the whole system comes tumbling down, or else enacting a Federal subsidy program to the insurance companies, which is what the insurance companies would like, I’m sure.
Do you really think that that is somehow showing deference to Congress and–and respecting the democratic process?
It seems to me it’s a gross distortion of it.
And here’s the humor from…. yesterday, I think?