To sever or not to sever

Aren’t you glad Bill Nelson is up for reelection in 2012?

At first I thought that the outrageous thing that Bill Nelson had said in this interview with Rick Klein of ABC News was that the Senator wasn’t sure whether or not ObamaCare was unconstitutional (good safety tip for legislators: if you don’t know whether or not a law violates the Constitution, don’t vote for it). But what Nelson was actually saying was that he considers ObamaCare Constitutional, but that the courts might disagree. That’s fine. He’s wrong for thinking that it’s Constitutional, but it is consistent with his vote.

But then Senator Nelson said this:

“But there is at the end of it what is called a severability clause, that says if parts are stuck down, that doesn’t strike down the whole law.”

Wait. What?

How do I put this: NO, THERE IS NO SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AT THE END. There was one in the first draft; it was later removed; the version that you voted for, Senator Nelson, had no severability clause; and the government used as part of its argument for keeping the individual mandate that the mandate could not be separated out from the rest of Obamacare. All of which is immediately obvious to anybody who took the time to read Judge Vinson’s decision in the first place… which apparently does not include Senator Bill Nelson.

Although, to be fair: Bill Nelson obviously didn’t read the original bill, either. In that, at least, this indicates a certain consistency.

This salient issue — the lack of a severability clause in the law — has eluded the brain-trust (ahem) of the libs who have excoriated Judge Vinson’s brilliant decision. We all know, of course, that when faced with reality, libs pull out their blankies, start sucking on it and repeat, “Look mommie, unicorns!” to make them feel better about the mean old world.


5 thoughts on “To sever or not to sever”

  1. These guys have problems reading the plain language of our “anachronistic” Constitution, how can they be expected to comprehend the finer points of legal concepts like the “severability clause”?

  2. Yes, the problem all these liberal senators have, and their counterpart talking heads who look so stupid when their mouths are in motion, is that NONE of them read the opinion. Their comments expose their ignorance.

    Most tragic, even if they were to read it, they wouldn’t understand the opinion because they look at everything thru the grid of their ideology. Therefore, whatever the Court says has no weight with these people. The longer the debate goes on, the more convinced I am that theirs is a hopeless condition. They simply need to be booted out without mercy.

  3. I read it and it’s a brilliant defense of our Constitution against the socialists and useful idiots who foisted ObamaCare on us. I hope the Supreme Court is as vigorous in their defense of our liberties as Judge Vinson.

  4. What struck me the most was the voluminous filings the judge waded through (he said he read all the materials) to reach his conclusions; so it wasn’t a decision on the fly, the man did his homework. Contrast it to the thin layer of writing Kagan had before she was confirmed to the Supremes. God help us.

Comments are closed.