🔍
Feinstein Says She Is Really Impressed With Amy Coney Barrett's Definition Of Severability | MSNBC - YouTube
Channel: MSNBC
[1]
SPECIAL IN THEIR LIVES.
[2]
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR.
[5]
>> YOU’RE WELCOME.
[7]
>> YESTERDAY YOU SPOKE OF
[9]
CALIFORNIA V. TEXAS, THE CURRENT
[12]
CASE SEEKING TO STRIKE DOWN THE
[14]
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
[15]
YOU SAID, I THINK, THAT THE
[17]
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS
[18]
SEVERABILITY.
[19]
MEANING WHETHER THE COURT CAN
[21]
STILL UPHOLD THE AFFORDABLE CARE
[24]
ACT, IF IT RULES THAT THE
[27]
INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS
[30]
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
[31]
AND YOU SAID YEDSTERDAY THIS
[33]
QUESTION WAS NOT BEFORE THE
[34]
COURT.
[34]
AS I UNDERSTAND THIS, CHIEF
[36]
JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THE MAJORITY
[41]
DID INVOLVE THE ISSUE OF SEVER
[44]
ACT IN A CASE KNOWN AS THE NIFB
[49]
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
[51]
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS V.
[52]
SEBELIUS.
[52]
THEIR THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND 5-4
[56]
MAJORITY THAT INCLUDED JUSTICE
[57]
GINSBURG STRUCK DOWN ONE PART OF
[59]
THE LAW.
[61]
THE MEDICAID EXPANSION
[62]
PROVISION, BUT ALLOWED THE REST
[64]
OF THE LAW TO STAND, BECAUSE
[66]
THEY FOUND IT WAS SEVERABLE FROM
[69]
THE PORTION THEY STRUCK DOWN.
[72]
JUSTICE SCALIA DISSENTED FROM
[75]
THIS CONCLUSION STATED THAT "THE
[78]
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
[80]
INDIVIDUAL MANDATE AND THE
[82]
MEDICAID EXPANSION REQUIRES THE
[84]
INVALIDATION OF THE AFFORDABLE
[87]
CARE ACT’S OTHER PROVISIONS."
[89]
IN OTHER WORDS, THE JUSTICE
[92]
BELIEVED THAT THE LAW WAS NOT
[94]
SEVERABLE AND THE ENTIRE LAW HAD
[97]
TO BE STRUCK DOWN, INCLUDING
[99]
PROVISIONS PROTECTING PEOPLE
[101]
WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS.
[103]
YOU HAVE BEEN CLOSE TO THE
[106]
JUSTICES PHILOSOPHY, AND IN
[108]
THESE HEARINGS YOU’VE ALSO SAID
[110]
THAT THIS DOESN’T MEAN YOU WOULD
[113]
REACH ALL THE SAME CONCLUSIONS.
[115]
SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US TODAY
[118]
HOW YOU WOULD DISAGREE OR AGREE
[122]
WITH JUSTICE SCALIA’S VIEW OF
[126]
SEVERABILITY IN THAT NIFB,
[128]
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
[129]
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS CASE?
[130]
>> WHAT I THINK I CAN SAY
[133]
WITHOUT EXPRESSING DISAGREEMENT
[134]
OR AGREEMENT FOR THE REASONS I
[137]
SAID YESTERDAY, NOT BEING ABLE
[140]
TO GRADE PRECEDENCE, THE
[141]
SEVERABILITY ISSUE, FIRST OF
[144]
ALL, MAJORITY HOLDING AS YOU
[146]
RECOGNIZED, WAS THAT EVEN THOUGH
[148]
THE MEDICAID PROVISION WAS
[149]
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IT WAS
[150]
SEVERABLE.
[151]
SO JUSTICE SCALIA EXPRESSED HIS
[155]
VIEW AND DISSENT EVEN BY JUSTICE
[158]
SCALIA’S VIEW THE ISSUE WOULD BE
[161]
DIFFERENT IN CALIFORNIA VERSUS
[163]
TEXAS FOR TWO REASONS.
[165]
ONE, JUSTICE SCALIA THOUGHT TWO
[167]
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
[169]
WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
[170]
IF YOU PICTURE SEVERABILITY
[172]
BEING LIKE A "JENGA" GAME, PULL
[174]
IT OUT, CAN YOU PULL IT OUT
[176]
WHILE IT ALL STANDS?
[177]
IF YOU PULL TWO OUT, WILL IT
[180]
STILL STAND?
[181]
SO JUSTICE SCALIA, HIS VIEW IF
[183]
YOU PULLED THOSE TWO PROVISIONS
[185]
OUT, COULD IT STILL STAND AND
[187]
HERE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT ONE AND
[191]
ALSO CONGRESS AMENDED THE
[194]
STATUTE SINCE NIFB VERSUS
[196]
SEBELIUS AND CALIFORNIA VERSUS
[197]
TEXAS INVOLVES A DIFFERENT
[199]
PROVISION BECAUSE OF THE ZEROING
[201]
OUT THAT WAS DONE BY AMENDMENT.
[204]
SO THAT’S HOW THE TWO CASES
[207]
PRESENT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
[209]
ISSUE, WHAVGTSISSUE
[210]
ISSUES.
[210]
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK OF ALL
[211]
THAT?
[212]
>> WHAT DO I THINK OF -- ISHGTS
[217]
SEVERABILITY?
[217]
>> IN THAT INSTANCE?
[219]
>> I THINK THE DOCTRINE OF
[221]
SEVERABILITY DESCRIBED BY THE
[224]
COURT SERVES A VALUABLE FUNCTION
[227]
OF TRYING FLOT TO INGING NOT TO
[231]
WHEN YOU WOULDN’T WANT A COURT TO UNDO YOUR WORK.
[235]
TO UNDO YOUR WORK.
[237]
STRIVES TO TOOK A STRACHTATUTE,
[242]
PULLING IT OUTS LIKE IN JENGA,
[245]
WOULDN’T WANT IT ANYMORE.
[247]
SEVERABILITY IS DESIGNED TO SAY,
[249]
WELL, WOULD CONGRESS STILL WANT
[251]
THE STATUTE TO STAND EVEN WITH
[253]
THIS PROVISION GONE?
[254]
WOULD CONGRESS STILL PASSED THE
[256]
SAME STATUTE WITHOUT IT?
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage