评论
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，我将让它合法，上周的节目中，你举出了为什么个人强制医保是违宪的案例，强制医保显然处于瘫痪中。但是，这对这一法案的其他部分可能意味着什么呢？让我们一些聆听斯卡利亚和金斯伯格两位法官的看法。看看我们是否能够猜测出法庭最终会如何决定。
My approach, I would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute's gone.
我的立场是，我将说，如果你取出了法规的核心内容，那么法规将不复存在。
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?
为什么我们说，这是一种选择，在对正在要求或者挽救的法案进行破坏操作，和更保守的方法即挽救它而不是放弃一切，之间进行选择。
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，如果强制医保，我猜，基本上，如果它继续留存，那么整个法案将困难重重？那么法案的其他部分能够保留么？
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?
这是非常非常难于回答的问题，首先让我这样解释一下，克里斯蒂，请看看这个，这是a，这表明法官们中产生了分歧，并且基于他们的论点，我们认为他们至少支持这一强制医保是遵守宪法的。还有，你知道，那些通常被称为自由派的法官们，他们是法官布雷耶，金斯伯格，卡根，以及法官Soromanyor，从我们曾听过的他们的表述的来看，他们将支持这条强制法律。而托马斯法官，阿利托，以及斯卡利亚法官看起来将要驳回这项法律。关键在于罗伯特和肯尼迪法官，他们选择哪一边，他们选择去哪儿，将不仅影响强制医保这一法律，而且还将左右法律的分割性问题。如果强制法律被驳回，他们会驳回整个2700法案吗？目前，几乎无法进行预测，但是，我们听他们表达过，他们希望寻求司法适度。不过他们并不知道，哪一种答案更适度。在一张白纸上全新开始，否定整个法案，将其还给国会，更为适度，还是最高法院通过2700医改法案，然后分析它遵守宪法或违宪，更为适度？
