Posted on 03/28/2012 1:28:43 PM PDT by Kaslin
There is no way that the Justices can parse through all the provisions in the 2,700-page law to determine which ones are dependent upon the presumably unconstitutional individual mandate.
Loved the way Scalia referred to such an exercise as “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Yeah, They’ll read it over lunch break.
I know it will never happen but I’d love to see a law in place that requires all senators and representatives to take a written test on any piece of legislation before they are able to vote “yes” on it. And such test should have at least 5 questions per page of new law.
That means the test on this one would be 13,500 questions.
If you don’t get a 75%, you can’t vote “yes”.
(Can’t vote FOR something if you don’t know WHAT the something is.)
This would be a good opening for the court to tell congress to pass bills that are easily understandable - otherwise they will be overturned.
LOL That's the polite way of saying "are you out of your tiny little minds?"
ANY discussion of keeping the Act if the mandate is stricken is DISTURBING because the Democrats designed it as "all or nothing" so it could be passed in Congress. The Dems can't have their cake and eat it too.
The SCOTUS upholding the Act under any circumstances is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the mandate is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
IF THE SCOTUS TURNS THEMSELVES INTO LAW MAKERS INSTEAD OF JUDGES OF THE EXISTING LAW, THEY'RE MAKING A MISTAKE OF MONUMENTAL PROPORTIONS.
A friend of mine suggested that there should be penalties levied against every congressman, senator and the president whenever a law they signed into existence was found unConstitutional.
The problem is, it is not 2,700 pages,
It is 2,700 pages of USC 1900,12 is changed to read from they to them. (pulling an example out of my rear)
Nobody could do that, without years of study.
The dang thing was written by lobbyists, with a gimme to their special interests - it is fascism,
The Govt’s answer....”Of course not Mr. Bond I expect you to die”
>>”You want us to go through 2,700 pages?”
Yes and it wouldn’t be interesting like Atlas Shrugged. I’m imagining the start of the audiobook:
“Audible Inc. presents...The Health Care Law. Narrated by
Scott Brick...”
—
better:
http://www.audible.com/pd/ref=sr_1_1?asin=B002UZL9G2&qid=1332967189&sr=1-1
Atlas Shrugged
UNABRIDGED
by Ayn Rand
Narrated by Scott Brick
63 hours
yep
To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi:
“Obviously, we’ll have to vote against it because we don’t know what’s in it.”
I habitually refer to O as a card-board-cutout president, a place-holder president, and I’m not really being facetious. He is not a real president, he is an actor reading a script.
But the fact is that congress has been debased to the same status. They passed laws they didn’t write and didn’t read. That is deeply shocking by itself. Having passed it into law they still don’t know whats in it nor have they any interest in finding out.
And having passed it they have unleashed a regulation-writer over whom they have no control and over whom they seek no control. Again, a shocking dereliction of duty.
This is not a congress, its a pantomime congress serving a pantomime president. If the Supremes don’t throw out this fraudulent waste of paper they have reduced themselves to a pantomime court and our republic to a sad and tragic joke.
Just sink the damn thing!...There’s nothing to go through!
Exactly!
And it should not take three more months to decide.
My apologies for not having html of these transcripts available. The PDFs came from the Supreme Court, and I was able to convert them to epubs, but my attempts at converting to html was simply too damned messy to publish. If you've got an ebook reader, the epub files work pretty well.
Wednesday - (pdf) (epub) (I'll post Wednesday when I get it)
Yes, that’s a point which must be clarified and emphasized.
It’s not two thousand seven hundred pages of law, it’s two thousand seven hundred pages of CHANGES to existing laws. Not only must SCOTUS read the entire bill, they must examine what and how existing law is changed by that bill - a much larger problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.