EXCERPT:
BERMAN: “Doc, I want to start with you here, and I want to try to explain to people exactly what this judge ruled because I think it’s important. He said since Republicans with the tax bill they passed took away the penalty for not having health care, it means that there can be no individual mandate, there can be, he says, no requirement that people buy insurance, the individual mandate which is in the original ObamaCare law. And he says without that individual mandate, then the entire law crumbles and is unconstitutional. Do you believe that to be a fair ruling?”
EMANUEL: “No, that is a ridiculous ruling and you don’t have to rely on a doctor like me. Lots of conservative legal scholars think it’s a silly ruling. The main logic there is the mandate is so essential to the law that nothing in the law can stand without the mandate. And the reason you know it’s a silly ruling is we haven't had a mandate with any enforceability since we passed the tax law because there’s no penalty anymore and much of the law is going forward, laws like changing how doctors are being paid, improving the quality in hospitals, investing in better workforce for the health care system. I like to say to my students that the Affordable Care Act is 906 pages long, the enrollment or coverage sections are only 225 pages, less than a quarter of that, and the part dealing with the mandate and the exchanges are even smaller. There’s plenty of the bill that that has nothing to do with the mandate, and that’s why this ruling by this judge will not be upheld. It’s a very silly ruling and does not — it sort of defies constitutional logic."