The reason Judge Roger Vinson was able to strike down the entire ”reform” law involved its lack of a severability clause. Jonathan Turley apparently agrees with ObamaCare conspiracy buffs who think that the clause was deliberately left out to protect the law:
There’s some suspicion that it might be a sort of game of chicken, that they wanted to make clear, if you take out the individual mandate, you are risking the entire bill.
In other words, the people who wrote the bill were betting that few judges would be willing to declare the mandate unconstitutional if that decision also required them to strike down the entire law. Judge Vinson’s ruling suggests that, as Turley phrases it, was a colossal mistake:
I think this is a good place to apply Ockham’s razor. The explanation that requires the fewest unsupported assumptions is probably the correct one. As O’Donnell, who was once a congressional staffer, points out:
That’s exactly the kind of mistake that occurs at the staff level when they are in these panic writings, last-minute writings of the legislative language of these bills – - things that they intend to be in there like a severability clause can easily slip out in the word processing.
I’m betting it was a simple screw-up rather than a subtle Machiavellian plot.