RockyTop85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 13,180
- Likes
- 7,128
Pretty sure Severability is the idea that one section of a statutory scheme can be ruled unconstitutional and severed from the rest of the scheme rather than invalidating the whole thing.
Congress can insert a non-severability clause that precludes application of severability. In this case, plaintiffs attempted to argue that there is a nonseverability clause in the statute. The problem is that it’s not in the same form or location as other nonseverability clauses and it’s debatable whether it can even be read to mean the same thing.
Somebody had a conniption about me quoting one of Kavanaugh’s opinions “out of context” when he stated his views on severability, last term. I can’t remember who it was, but maybe I’ll try to find it so I can dunk on them if he ends up in the majority.
Alito and Thomas seemed to be trying to play for the idea that plaintiffs don’t have standing. Tends towards your theory. They’re trying to form a majority that will dump the case without a ruling on the merits because there’s not a majority that will rule for republicans on the merits. I assume they think K, Breyer, or the chief might be peeled off.
