Jonathan Turley in USA Today points out the Democrat’s complicity in Judge Vinson’s ruling that declared ObamaCare null and void. Bottom line – they screwed up, bigtime:
Yet the failure of lawmakers to insert a boilerplate severability clause is the most puzzling. The standard clause — pardon the legalese — states, “If any particular provision of this act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.” It is generally on a short list of basic elements for legislation, such as putting a title and preamble on a bill.
The national health care bill contained such a provision, but it was removed before passage. Of course, even without such a clause, judges can still avoid striking down an entire law and confine their rulings to a specific provision. That is what Judge Henry Hudson did last year in Virginia after finding the individual mandate unconstitutional. Hudson was right to do so, in my view, but that does not make Vinson a judicial activist.
The charge of activism sounds like the lament of every bad gambler after being discouraged from playing a high-risk hand.
Actually, it sounds more like the whining of a spoiled child who doesn’t get his or her way for once. Turley compares the antics of the forced passage of the law to a game of chicken.
Well, except that the Democrats were playing chicken with a brick wall. They figured the wall would move.