{"id":16122,"date":"2012-03-29T16:55:42","date_gmt":"2012-03-29T16:55:42","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2012-03-29T16:55:42","modified_gmt":"2012-03-29T16:55:42","slug":"my_judge_buddy_on_severability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/","title":{"rendered":"My Judge Buddy on Severability"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: I talked to the judge last night about severability. Severability is something that I misunderstood. Maybe I\u2019m the only one who did. I don\u2019t want to say. I said in the last hour that everybody misunderstood it because of the way it\u2019s reported. That may not be the case. I\u2019m sure my legal beagle friends understand it and would not be surprised to hear what the judge told me. People confuse the rule on severability. In this case you have Obamacare<\/a> and the mandate, and what I always thought severability was, if the Congress puts a clause in the bill, the severability clause, then it\u2019s a matter of law that any portion of the law can be thrown out but the rest of the law stands. That, I was told by my judge buddy, is not what it is. The rule is not whether the constitutional parts of a bill can stand if one or more other parts are unconstitutional. Instead the rule is whether the Congress would have enacted the bill without the unconstitutional parts. <\/p>\n

<\/a>Now, in the case of Obamacare, no one is arguing that the bill would have passed without the mandate. That\u2019s the test. In fact, it most certainly would not have. The mandate was the funding mechanism, so the rule here is whether Congress would have enacted the bill without the unconstitutional parts. That\u2019s what the judges are supposed to look at in severability. And it was pointed out to me that Justice Scalia has picked up on this. The way Congress deals with this kind of issue is to put a severability clause in the bill to specify that if one part of the bill is declared unconstitutional, the other parts will stand nonetheless because that\u2019s what they intend. <\/p>\n

A severability clause is absent in Obamacare, and further — and this I did know, and in fact passed on to you — the legislative history of Obamacare proves conclusively that they affirmatively took out the severability clause. It used to be in, in an early version of the bill, and then, for whatever reason, the Democrats took it out. They took the severability clause out. Therefore, according to the letter of the law, the entire bill must be stricken. According to the letter of the law, all of Obamacare must now be thrown out, because Congress never intended the rest of the bill to pass without the mandate in it. That\u2019s what severability means, as explained to me by my judge buddy. The bill has to be stricken in toto, according to the letter of the law. <\/p>\n

In fact, my judge buddy wrote, “Ain\u2019t no question about it.” And then I said, “Okay, well, what\u2019s gonna happen?” And I said, “Isn\u2019t that interesting. The letter of the law says the law\u2019s gotta be thrown out,” and I still said, “Okay, what\u2019s gonna happen?” Acknowledging the letter of the law will not matter here. Politics will intercede. So I asked my judge buddy what\u2019s gonna happen. He said, “I handicap the case at three-to-one the mandate will be stricken, even odds the whole thing gets tossed.” There\u2019s an outside chance the five-vote conservative majority will be enhanced by one or more libs. It could be 6-3, 7-2, to throw the whole thing out, according to my judge buddy. Letter of the law says it must be stricken. The whole law must be thrown out. <\/p>\n

If they throw the mandate out, and there\u2019s no severability clause because the absence of a severability clause means, according to rule, that Congress didn\u2019t intend any of the rest of it to pass without the mandate. They put the severability clause in to stimulate the rest of the bill we like, the rest of the bill constitutional, the rest of the bill okay. If you throw anything out, the rest stays. They took that clause out, meaning they didn\u2019t stand behind the bill if a part of it was found unconstitutional. So I wrote back for clarification on this. I said, “Under your explanation, is it even harder for a bill to survive because there has to be a showing that Congress intended it? And without the severability clause it\u2019s really hard to prove that they would have intended the bill to stand without the stricken part?” He wrote back and said, “Correct.” <\/line><\/p>\n

That\u2019s the rule on the severability clause, and that\u2019s the letter of the law, which is another thing I find fascinating. The letter of the law is the letter of the law. Letter of the law says, because there was no severability clause, and if the mandate gets tossed, the whole thing has to go. But I doubt that that\u2019ll happen. So the letter of the law will be moderated with political considerations. Because then the reality sets in. My judge buddy then said to me, “Are these conservative judges really going to want to throw out an entire piece of legislation by the first black president?” Are these judges going to really want to have their names on the first black president\u2019s signature bill being unconstitutional? Are these judges going to want to have their names on the whole thing, regardless whose bill it is, being declared unconstitutional? <\/p>\n

Thereby confirming what we all know, that judges do pay attention. They pay attention to election results. They pay attention to polls. They pay attention to the culture. But they shouldn\u2019t. This is why they have lifetime appointments. It\u2019s expressly why they have lifetime appointments, so that they are immune from political, cultural, social concerns of the day. Now, Snerdley is saying, “If the letter of the law isn\u2019t really the letter of the law, isn\u2019t the new precedent that there is no letter of the law?” No. The law\u2019s always bendable, flexible. The scales of justice — Snerdley, you think this would be the first case where the letter of the law has been — (interruption) well, the letter of the law is living and breathing, like the Constitution. <\/p>\n

You and I all know, in reality, the letter of the law depends on the prosecutor, depends on the judge, and people are imperfect. Judges, members of Congress, everybody, we are all imperfect. That\u2019s what the law is supposed to be, a guideline, an establishment of moral character and fiber in one sense. Libs hate that, by the way, when you say the law is rooted in morality. They hate that, but you can\u2019t deny it, but they despise that because they don\u2019t like any morality, period. But the letter of the law, Snerdley, depends on your alphabet. It\u2019s no more complicated than that. The letter of the law is still subject to interpretation. Otherwise every decision would be 9-zip, wouldn\u2019t it?<\/line><\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Snerdley loves it. Everybody loves it. “The letter of the law depends on your alphabet.” It\u2019s like the NAALCP. Their letter of the law is gonna be much different than, say, the SEIU. (chuckles) It really depends on your alphabet. That\u2019s why we have a critical alphabet theory. On the left you haven\u2019t heard of that, critical alphabet theory? It goes along with “critical race theory” by Derrick Bell. Critical alphabet theory and it has to do with the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and the intent of the law and, “How the hell can we break the law?” <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Scott in Ohio, great to have you on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Hi. It\u2019s great to be talking to you and listening to you, Rush. I called because you were just talking a little a while ago about the New York Times looking for who to blame after three days at the Supreme Court, and I\u2019m wondering if you think the left media is just going through the stages of grief. Because I saw Greg Sargent in his online blog last night was saying they\u2019re not going to strike down the mandate because it will cause so many problems for the Congress if they do. Not whether it\u2019s legal or unconstitutional, but just they\u2019ll do that because it would create a whole big mess.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Let me tell you where I think he\u2019s getting that. And for those who don\u2019t know, Greg Sargent used to be — I think this is the guy — at a trade publication called Editor & Publisher. He now has blog called The Plumb Line.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Right.<\/p>\n

RUSH: At the Washington Post website.<\/p>\n

CALLER: He\u2019s pretty deep in denial. (chuckling)<\/p>\n

RUSH: Right. And he\u2019s pretty solid far left. This has been my point all week. I think all of liberalism is in denial, as a perpetual state of existence. But on this specific case, let\u2019s go back to what the judge told me. Let\u2019s go back to two things. My judge buddy defined severability for me. And yesterday we also had Scalia saying to the associate solicitor general (paraphrased), “Do you expect us to go through these 2,700 pages here and determine what\u2019s constitutional? You expect us to do that? You expect our clerks to do that? You\u2019re worried about judicial excess, judicial authority, judicial overreach and you\u2019re asking us to do this? This is the legislature\u2019s job,” which takes us Sargent\u2019s point. Now, before I make that point, let\u2019s go to the severability business. What\u2019s different here in Obamacare is the individual mandate is the keystone of this bill. It\u2019s the funding mechanism. It is the transformational aspect. It is that mandate. The individual mandate is what will forever change the relationship of citizen to government, and vice-versa, as Justice Kennedy pointed out.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Right.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Are you with me so far here, Scott?<\/p>\n

CALLER: I am. Thank you.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Okay. The statute is so long (2,700 pages), so complicated, and it\u2019s all intertwined one section to the next. This thing is an intricately woven web. To take the keystone out of it does raise the question of, “Can the rest of it survive?” And it can\u2019t, because this is largely how it\u2019s paid for and for a host of other reasons. If you don\u2019t require — if you cannot require — people to buy insurance, everything else in this falls by the wayside.<\/p>\n

CALLER: And I think Clement… I listened to the whole argument. He argued that very ably yesterday.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Okay. So what I think Sargent is saying is that if the judges do that, if the justices do that, what they end up sending back to Congress is so complicated and so unwieldy that they couldn\u2019t put it back together. Is that basically his point?<\/p>\n

CALLER: Yeah, and then he goes on. What he\u2019s saying, though, is: And that\u2019s why they won\u2019t strike down the mandate. So I think that\u2019s where the denial and unreality come in.<\/p>\n

RUSH: I don\u2019t think that\u2019s gonna be the reason. Maybe for the lib judges, but I don\u2019t think so. No. That is wishful thinking. The effect on Congress will be the determining factor in whether or not a majority decides the mandate\u2019s constitutional? No, no, that\u2019s denial, wishful thinking, what have you.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Okay.<\/p>\n

<\/a>RUSH: No, that\u2019s not gonna be the reason. That\u2019s patently absurd. Now, they might believe it. I\u2019m sure people on the left got themselves in a situation where they believe that, because, look: They never would face reality. They just are incapable of it. They are in a state of shock! They can\u2019t believe that anybody could look at this and see that it\u2019s unconstitutional. I could even put it in a better way. They can\u2019t believe anybody would look at this and disagree with it. Have you ever wanted something so bad you can taste it? Have you ever wanted something that it just consumes you? In the Lord of the Rings, what was the bad guy that wanted the ring? What was his name?<\/line>Sauron. That\u2019s them. They are like addicts. They can\u2019t get their arms around the fact that reasonable people wouldn\u2019t want this. They can\u2019t get their arms around the fact that people aren\u2019t embracing it and falling in love with it. They do not understand the intellectual arguments, the judicial arguments opposing it. They\u2019ve never stopped to consider them. They\u2019re beneath them. Their arrogance and conceit is such that the opposition is disqualified simply because it opposes, not for why. So I imagine a lot of them are clinging to some manufactured hope, like, “The judges will decide that the bill would be just too complicated for our poor Congress to have to deal with, and so they will not declare the mandate unconstitutional.”<\/line><\/p>\n

That\u2019s not gonna happen.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re gonna declare this thing constitutional or not based on whether it\u2019s constitutional or not, and not on the impact it has on Congress. Now, there might be a couple of judges that reference this in order to have it on record, but it won\u2019t be the determining factor in their decision. In fact, the way the libs are looking at this, some of them — if you listen to James Carville, and a lot of others now — wanted this thing to fail from the get-go. (Carville impression) “Why, dis is the best political opportunity Obama eva had! Where my gumbo?” That\u2019s right. ‘Cause they think the mandate being found unconstitutional (i.e., illegal) is gonna gin up their base. They\u2019re gonna come out just as enthusiastic as they were in 2008. Other libs are saying, “Hey, you know what? If you find unconstitutional, that\u2019s cool. We just go straight to everybody\u2019s under Medicare now. We\u2019ll just do single payer right now rather than tiptoe up to it in ten years!”<\/p>\n

But they\u2019re all engaged in wishful thinking.<\/line><\/p>\n

These are the people that are trying to tell us now that they win when they lose.<\/p>\n

Okay, if that\u2019s true, let\u2019s make gasoline eight bucks and really send Obama racing back to reelection!<\/p>\n

If that\u2019s how it works. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: So where are the Democrats today on this? What are they doing today? Well, in a couple of instances the left is demanding that the Supreme Court cede to Congress. Just don\u2019t do anything. Let Obamacare stand. Don\u2019t do anything. It\u2019s Congress\u2019 job, to which, well, whatever happened to judicial activism? All of a sudden now the libs don\u2019t want the courts to do their dirty work. They\u2019re scared to death that this mandate\u2019s gonna be tossed out. See, the revenue from the mandate is the fuel of Obamacare. There isn\u2019t any alternative fuel. There\u2019s no algae in the rest of the bill. There aren\u2019t any windmills and no solar farms in the health care bill. The mandate is the only funding mechanism that there is. <\/p>\n

But you notice now how all of a sudden some on the left are demanding that the justices on the court butt out and cede to Congress and let it stand because it\u2019s too big a problem. If you take something out and send it back to Congress, it\u2019s too unwieldy, it\u2019s too much work, and Congress can\u2019t do anything. Just let it stand as it is. It\u2019s the responsible thing to do. The left is telling judges not to meddle now. I search interminably for the perfect way to describe these people that will forever explain them to everybody. I know it\u2019s there. I\u2019ll spend the rest of my life trying to find it, as a means of educating, persuading, informing just who these people are. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Look, folks, what this shows is what an incompetent, power-hungry president and former Democrat majority Congress we had and have. There were a hundred ways to deal with health care, but Obama and Pelosi and Reid, they chose the most preposterous, over-the-top way to do this, and they did it on purpose.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

Mark in Fort Worth. Thank you for calling. I appreciate your waiting as well. Hi.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Hello, Rush. Dittos from the Lone Star State.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Thank you.<\/p>\n

CALLER: I wanted to touch on the Obamacare, Supreme Court discussions of the last week, again on the severability issue.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Yeah.<\/p>\n

CALLER: I think it\u2019s very revealing that the Democrat-controlled Congress intentionally, I think, intentionally left out the severability clause because I think they are daring the court to throw out the entire law. I think that they know that if they had put severability in the act they would have struck down the mandate but may have left the rest of it, but I think their arrogance —<\/p>\n

RUSH: Wait a minute.<\/p>\n

CALLER: — I think they are daring the court —<\/p>\n

RUSH: Wait. Wait, wait, wait.<\/p>\n

CALLER: — to throw it all out.<\/p>\n

RUSH: I\u2019m not sure I understand you. Did you say you think that they want the court to throw out the whole thing?<\/p>\n

CALLER: No. No. I apologize for not making that clear. Obviously I think they want it to pass. I think they wanted to make it a complete up-or-down vote on the entire act in intimidating the court into —<\/p>\n

RUSH: Oh.<\/p>\n

CALLER: — not being willing to vote down the entire act. I think they were arrogant enough to put that in front of the court and say, “Here, if you think you\u2019ve got the intestinal fortitude to vote this down then you go right ahead, but we don\u2019t think you\u2019ll do it.”<\/p>\n

RUSH: So that\u2019s why they took the severability clause out?<\/p>\n

CALLER: Exactly.<\/p>\n

RUSH: And so your thinking is that the court is gonna say, “We don\u2019t want to be the ones who throw out the first black president\u2019s signature legislation.”<\/p>\n

CALLER: Because to me the interesting thing about it is the severability issue, the way it fell in the arguments was, we had all these other arguments about the mandate and is it constitutional or is it not. The severability issue comes up and then all of a sudden they had to stand back and say, “Oh, wait, if we strike this down, it looks like we may have to strike down the entire law, and I don\u2019t know if we want to strike down the entire law,” and I think that\u2019s all by design.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Okay. Just so I understand you. You think they left out severability to make it politically impossible for the judges to toss it out?<\/p>\n

CALLER: To make it politically much more difficult for them to strike down the entire law. Because, as your judge friend in your correspondence yesterday said, the letter of the law says if they strike down the mandate, they strike down all of it.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Right.<\/p>\n

CALLER: But if they strike down just the mandate and leave the rest of it, then the Democrats in Congress can go back and say, “Well, here we\u2019ve got a Supreme Court that\u2019s not even following the letter of the law. They\u2019re doing what they want to to this act.” So they win politically in two of the three options that are in front of them.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, see, this is where I have trouble because you may have a point but I don\u2019t think they did this on purpose. I think they were stupid. I think they were in a hurry and I think they forgot it. They\u2019re not that smart. They are politically devious, but I\u2019m having trouble believing that they would take that risk. That after dreaming of this for 50 years, they would construct it in such a way that the only way it survives is by daring a court to throw it out? I don\u2019t think that\u2019s what\u2019s going on here. I think they were in a hurry. I think they barely had ways to get this thing passed, and I think they just forgot it, because it was in a previous version. <\/p>\n

In fact, let\u2019s go to audio sound bite number 24. This is Rahm Emanuel\u2019s brother, Ezekiel Emanuel who\u2019s part of the regime and he\u2019s one of the grandfathers of this whole thing. He\u2019s one of the authors. He\u2019s one of the grand pooh-bahs. Ezekiel Emanuel. He\u2019s a doctor. He\u2019s an M.D., he\u2019s a Ph.D., and he\u2019s the ballet dancer\u2019s brother. He was on NBC this afternoon, and they had a discussion about the oral arguments and the individual mandate being overturned, and he was asked this question: “Why wasn\u2019t severability built into this?” Why didn\u2019t you guys put the severability clause in it?<\/p>\n

EMANUEL: That I believe was an oversight, not an intention. And I do know that most of us wanted severability and had certainly thought that there\u2019s severability in the bill.<\/p>\n

ANCHOR: (clearing throat)<\/p>\n

EMANUEL: And that\u2019s the way, again, all the lower courts have been understanding this issue, that it is severable. But I think whether it\u2019s severable or not, one has to take the tone that it really isn\u2019t the place of justices to decide, “Well, how is it best to structure the health insurance market?” Remember, Congress held, y\u2019know, over 70 days of hearings just on the House side on health care reform.<\/p>\n

RUSH: That\u2019s a crock.<\/p>\n

EMANUEL: For the justices to come in and say, “Well, we\u2019ve read a bunch of briefs,” even if there\u2019s a record number of briefs, “We\u2019ve held six hours of hearings. We\u2019re gonna decide how best to structure the health insurance market, what can be included, what can\u2019t,” seems to be to be quite…<\/line><\/p>\n

ANCHOR: (clearing throat)<\/p>\n

EMANUEL: Y\u2019know, usurping a lot of policymaking, which, in the past, has been something conservatives have decried.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Wait a second, Zeke! That\u2019s not at all what the court said. Scalia said yesterday they don\u2019t want to do this! See what this guy is doing? Now he\u2019s coming out and saying the court wants to take over and run this thing when it\u2019s Congress\u2019 job, and Scalia specifically made fun of that! (paraphrased) “You expect us to do this? What about judicial overreach? We don\u2019t want any part of this.” This is hilarious! This guy is also against judicial activism now. This is a guy who wants judges writing new law, except all of a sudden he doesn\u2019t. These people, I\u2019m telling you: They\u2019re not as smart… Mark, they\u2019re not as smart as you\u2019re giving them credit for.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re diabolical, and they\u2019re plenty deceitful. But they would gladly get the camel\u2019s notices under the tent on this bill. They\u2019d take any aspect of it they could. In fact, one of the ways to look at this is to say they would love the mandate to be thrown out but the rest of the bill to survive so they can replace the mandate with single payer. Right now. Not ten years from now. Just Medicare for everybody and be done with it. Medicare for everybody! Medicare for everybody and be done with it, and get single payer tomorrow instead of ten years from now. A lot of pundits are analyzing it that way.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RUSH: I talked to the judge last night about severability. Severability is something that I misunderstood. Maybe I\u2019m the only one who did. I don\u2019t want to say. I said in the last hour that everybody misunderstood it because of the way it\u2019s reported. That may not be the case. I\u2019m sure my legal beagle […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nMy Judge Buddy on Severability - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"My Judge Buddy on Severability - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"RUSH: I talked to the judge last night about severability. Severability is something that I misunderstood. Maybe I\u2019m the only one who did. I don\u2019t want to say. I said in the last hour that everybody misunderstood it because of the way it\u2019s reported. That may not be the case. I\u2019m sure my legal beagle […]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/JusticeScaliaObamacare.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"GeorgePrayias\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/JusticeScaliaObamacare.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/JusticeScaliaObamacare.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/\",\"name\":\"My Judge Buddy on Severability - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-03-29T16:55:42+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-03-29T16:55:42+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9a33276eb9dc5b6d3f8218957f30e6b4\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"My Judge Buddy on Severability\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9a33276eb9dc5b6d3f8218957f30e6b4\",\"name\":\"GeorgePrayias\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d290ab65e2eaca3719268528f83b85bf?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d290ab65e2eaca3719268528f83b85bf?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"GeorgePrayias\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/GeorgePrayias\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"My Judge Buddy on Severability - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"My Judge Buddy on Severability - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"RUSH: I talked to the judge last night about severability. Severability is something that I misunderstood. Maybe I\u2019m the only one who did. I don\u2019t want to say. I said in the last hour that everybody misunderstood it because of the way it\u2019s reported. That may not be the case. I\u2019m sure my legal beagle […]","twitter_image":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/JusticeScaliaObamacare.jpg","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"GeorgePrayias","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/JusticeScaliaObamacare.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/JusticeScaliaObamacare.jpg"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/","name":"My Judge Buddy on Severability - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2012-03-29T16:55:42+00:00","dateModified":"2012-03-29T16:55:42+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9a33276eb9dc5b6d3f8218957f30e6b4"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/03\/29\/my_judge_buddy_on_severability\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"My Judge Buddy on Severability"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9a33276eb9dc5b6d3f8218957f30e6b4","name":"GeorgePrayias","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d290ab65e2eaca3719268528f83b85bf?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d290ab65e2eaca3719268528f83b85bf?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"GeorgePrayias"},"url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/GeorgePrayias\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16122"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}