Court signals entire health care law might need to be struck down

Story by MSNBC
Written by Tom Curry

In the Supreme Court’s final day of arguments on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law, the justices wrestled Wednesday with what happens to the law if they strike down the provision that requires the uninsured to buy insurance.

“I think a majority of the court believes that if it rules that individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest of the health care law probably cannot be saved,” reported NBC’s Pete Williams after hearing the 90 minutes of oral argument.

“It would seem that a majority of the court -- again, breaking down along the familiar lines -- believes ... it would be a very difficult, almost impossible, chore to figure out which parts of the law could still be saved,” Williams reported.

At issue before the court on Wednesday was “severe-ability” -- a principle that holds that if one part of a law is ruled unconstitutional, the remaining parts of the law can stay in force.

Attorney Paul Clement argues on behalf of respondents challenging the constitutionality of 2010 Affordable Health Care law, while standing before members of the Supreme Court in this courtroom illustration by Reuters.

Williams reported that the justices were “very concerned” about the effects on the insurance industry of leaving intact the obligations imposed on it to offer coverage to all who seek it without the source of income from the individual mandate.

“They are very worried about saddling the insurance industry with that,” he said.

Arguing that Congress ought to be given the opportunity to repair the bill if the court strikes down the individual mandate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “In a democracy structured like ours, where each branch does different things, why we should involve the Court in making the legislative judgment?”
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/28/10901255-court-signals-entire-health-care-law-might-need-to-be-struck-down