Everything I've read and heard about it says no severability clause. Whether that was a slip-up because of the way it was rammed through on Christmas Eve without the normal reconciliation between House and Senate versions, or was it intentional thinking when it ultimately ended up in the SCOTUS it would have to be an all or nothing decision is unknown. The problem with tossing out the mandate only, which has now been changed to the "individual responsibility" clause by the WH spinmeisters, is that it provides the funding for all the new entitlements. Without this the rest of Obamacare falls apart. Wednesday's SC debate was about this. The WH lawyer suggested that each provision of the bill be examined individually to see what could be saved on it's merits. Scalia scoffed at this idea, asking if they (the Court) was expected to go through the entire 2,700 pages in detail, and also asked what happened to the 8th amendment (that's the one about cruel and unusual punishment.) The Solicitor General (Verrilli) who argued in favor of the mandate on Tuesday was clearly unprepared, and the Justices didn't seem to appreciate that. Buzzy and Soto tried to help him out, asking leading questions and trying to get him to change his answers. Kagan had written the entire defense argument while she was Solicitor General, so she was probably frustrated that he did so poorly. Pretty much everyone now expects a 5-4 decision against the mandate. The WH has said they have no contingency plan for what they will do if it is struck down. The decision will be handed down in June.
