評論
打印
Well, I'll put it on a legal head, last week, on the show, you laid out the case as to why the individual mandate is unconstitutional, it's clearly in jeopardy, but what it might mean for the rest of the law? Take a listen to Justice's Scalia and Ginsburg. See if you can figure out what the court might ultimately decide?
好吧，我將讓它合法，上周的節目中，你舉出了為什么個人強制醫保是違憲的案例，強制醫保顯然處于癱瘓中。但是，這對這一法案的其他部分可能意味著什么呢？讓我們一些聆聽斯卡利亞和金斯伯格兩位法官的看法。看看我們是否能夠猜測出法庭最終會如何決定。
My approach, I would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute's gone.
我的立場是，我將說，如果你取出了法規的核心內容，那么法規將不復存在。
Why should we say, that it's a choice between a wrecking operation which is what you're requesting or a salvage job, and the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything?
為什么我們說，這是一種選擇，在對正在要求或者挽救的法案進行破壞操作，和更保守的方法即挽救它而不是放棄一切，之間進行選擇。
So will, can the rest of the law survive if the individual mandate which is I guess, essentially the glue of the whole thing is struck down?
因此，如果強制醫保，我猜，基本上，如果它繼續留存，那么整個法案將困難重重？那么法案的其他部分能夠保留么？
That's a very, very tough question to answer, let me explain it this way first of all, Christie, let me show you this, this is a, this shows the breakdown of the Justices, and based upon their arguments where we think they might stand, at least on the constitutionality of the mandate. Over here, you have what's commonly described as the liberal justices, that's Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Kagan and Justice Soromanyor, everything we heard from them suggests they'll uphold the mandate. While Justice Thomas, Alito and Scalia made it sound like they will strike down the mandate. The big questions are Roberts and Kennedy, which way they go, where they go, and not only on the issue of the mandate, but also on this issue of severability, if the mandate is struck down, will they strike down the entire 2700 page bill? It's just impossible to predict right now, but we did hear them say they wanna seek judicial modesty. And they don't know the answer to that, what's more modest? Is it more modest to start a clean start with a clean slate, strike down the entire thing and give it back to congress, or is it more modest for the Supreme Court to go through the 2700 pages and analyze what is constitutional and what is not?
這是非常非常難于回答的問題，首先讓我這樣解釋一下，克里斯蒂，請看看這個，這是a，這表明法官們中產生了分歧，并且基于他們的論點，我們認為他們至少支持這一強制醫保是遵守憲法的。還有，你知道，那些通常被稱為自由派的法官們，他們是法官布雷耶，金斯伯格，卡根，以及法官Soromanyor，從我們曾聽過的他們的表述的來看，他們將支持這條強制法律。而托馬斯法官，阿利托，以及斯卡利亞法官看起來將要駁回這項法律。關鍵在于羅伯特和肯尼迪法官，他們選擇哪一邊，他們選擇去哪兒，將不僅影響強制醫保這一法律，而且還將左右法律的分割性問題。如果強制法律被駁回，他們會駁回整個2700法案嗎？目前，幾乎無法進行預測，但是，我們聽他們表達過，他們希望尋求司法適度。不過他們并不知道，哪一種答案更適度。在一張白紙上全新開始，否定整個法案，將其還給國會，更為適度，還是最高法院通過2700醫改法案，然后分析它遵守憲法或違憲，更為適度？
