Not severable

The second judge was correct. The first judge ruled that making buying health insurance mandatory was unconstitutional (which it obviously was), but struck down only that provision, despite the lack of severability in the law. The second judge struck down the whole thing.

While I am strongly tempted to claim that nobody in the House and Senate read enough of it to notice the lack of the usual clause (and I still don't believe any human could master the complexities of the law plus regulations)--this time I think they left it out deliberately. The bill--any health care bill--has to balance changes, and if one leg got knocked out the result would be predictably unbalanced and disastrous. Best to can the whole thing if something goes wrong.

So kudos to Judge Vinson for doing the right thing, and a salute to Congress for leaving that potentially disastrous severability provision out.