Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scalia: Reading entire health care law would be cruel and unusual punishment
Politico ^ | 3/28/12 | Byron Tau

Posted on 03/28/2012 1:34:42 PM PDT by Nachum

Arguing about whether the court could keep some provisions of the health care law intact, Justice Antonin Scalia says that reading all 2,700 pages of the statute would constitute, basically, torture: Justice Scalia: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? (Laughter.) Justice Scalia: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to -- to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obamacare; punishment; scalia
...Reading entire health care law would be cruel and unusual punishment

True that

1 posted on 03/28/2012 1:34:44 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


2 posted on 03/28/2012 1:36:09 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

"THIS IS A BIG 'EFFING DEAL!"


3 posted on 03/28/2012 1:36:40 PM PDT by LibFreeUSA (Pick Your Poison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Pelosi said we needed to pass Obama Care to find out what was in it.

So, who can blame the SCOTUS for not wanting to readi it either?

Just rule against the dang thing and call it a day.


4 posted on 03/28/2012 1:39:01 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Just rule against the dang thing and call it a day.

Amen to that!!
5 posted on 03/28/2012 1:40:14 PM PDT by Thorliveshere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

WHY THE HECK SHOULD THE SUPREMES READ THE ENTIRE THING??? The stupids in congress DIDN”T!!!!!!! And they are the idiots who VOTED THE THING INTO LAW!!!


6 posted on 03/28/2012 1:41:02 PM PDT by RetiredArmy (I'm no Dim or RINO. I am a Monarchist. I serve THE coming King of kings!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Its the time to RIP the worst and most greedy piece of legislation in US history.


7 posted on 03/28/2012 1:42:07 PM PDT by oyez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi:

“Obviously, we’ll have to vote against it because we don’t know what’s in it”


8 posted on 03/28/2012 1:43:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Save yourself some time an just announce the whole thing in it;s entirety is unConstitutional and was written by crazed communists.


9 posted on 03/28/2012 1:44:59 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

““Obviously, we’ll have to vote against it because we don’t know what’s in it””

Remember the SOTU where Obama ripped SCOTUS?

What perfect revenge.


10 posted on 03/28/2012 1:45:34 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Solyent Pink is Sheeple!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

A 2700 page law should be thrown out simply because it’s 2700 pages.

Obviously, no one read it...no one knows how it actually works, and it’s far too complex to actually be representative of the people.


11 posted on 03/28/2012 1:46:29 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Burning the Quran is a waste of perfectly good fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I didn’t think the Congress read it. Why would SCOTUS be expected to?


12 posted on 03/28/2012 1:47:24 PM PDT by brytlea (An ounce of chocolate is worth a pound of cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny

They should use software coding standards for laws -

nothing more than one page of clearly readable text.

What? Can’t put your special provisions in there for your cronies? Guess you’ll have to not write those kind of laws anymore.


13 posted on 03/28/2012 1:49:50 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Give me a high profile government job where I can't be fired, and throw in lots of money and perks.
I'll take if if I don't have to do any thing. Shame if you have you make a vote that can be criticized.
14 posted on 03/28/2012 1:49:50 PM PDT by JimmyMc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Justice Scalia: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment?

Since he asked;

Justice Scalia, what happened to the First Amendment?
Justice Scalia, what happened to the Second Amendment?
Justice Scalia, what happened to the Fourth Amendment?

I could go on but those are the most trod upon these days and I would like answers from this court.

15 posted on 03/28/2012 1:55:08 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (I will not comply. I will NEVER submit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

If there’s no understanding it (i.e., not being read before, during or after), how in the world can it be law?


16 posted on 03/28/2012 1:55:24 PM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny
It was designed to be rejected.
The preemptive strike was when during the State Of The Union address Chairman Obamakov verbally assaulted the SCOTUS. That was deliberate and calculated.
It sets up the Community Organizer-Alinsky tactic of divisive atmosphere.
The propaganda machine will swing into action proclaiming the rejection of Obamacare was not ruled on legal grounds, but ruled via vindictiveness.
The OWS armies will protest, riot, and we have martial law declared.
Result:
Checkmate by Kruschev.
17 posted on 03/28/2012 2:00:03 PM PDT by RavenLooneyToon (Tail gunner Joe was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Legislation of which the content is unknown to the law makers of the legislation isn’t known until after it becomes law IMO is reason enough to abolish the law.

The whole thing makes as much sense as the above sentence.


18 posted on 03/28/2012 2:01:46 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
This bill is especially impenetrable. As with most legislation, it's essentially a script to modify the US Code, and consists of stuff like this:
SEC. 1002. INDIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

(a) AMOUNTS.--Section 5000A(c) of the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1501(b) of

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and

amended by section 10106 of such Act, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (2)(B)--

(A) in the matter preceding clause (i),

by--

(i) inserting “the excess of” before

“the taxpayer's household income”; and

(ii) inserting “for the taxable year

over the amount of gross income specified

in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the

taxpayer” before “for the taxable year”;

So every damn paragraph would involve going to the referenced US Code section and seeing what effect the prescribed change would do. It would take a hundred people, and they would never know all the implications of every change.
19 posted on 03/28/2012 2:02:12 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

What I would like to know is what kind of a nerd could write in such legalese? And did they really misspell Individual at the top?


20 posted on 03/28/2012 2:05:31 PM PDT by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
If they don't read the whole thing, upholding it should be considered an impeachable offense.
21 posted on 03/28/2012 2:07:39 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector

What I would like to know is what kind of a nerd could write in such legalese? And did they really misspell Individual at the top?

***

Maybe they’re using WordPerfect 5.0 sans spell-check under DOS.


22 posted on 03/28/2012 2:23:11 PM PDT by ROTB (FReepmail me if you want to join a team seeking the LORD for a Christian revival now in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

They should order Pelosi and Reid to the court and require them to read it into the record, aloud and on camera for the public, while the Justices take a nap.


23 posted on 03/28/2012 2:25:12 PM PDT by Gator113 (** President Newt Gingrich-"Our beloved republic deserves nothing less." ~Just livin' life, my way~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Reading entire health care law would be cruel and unusual punishment

So don't read it! Nobody else did! We have to rule it unconstitutional to find out what's in it.

24 posted on 03/28/2012 2:34:52 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Neo-communist equals Neo-fascist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRW Conspirator

” We have to rule it unconstitutional to find out what’s in it. “

WINNER!


25 posted on 03/28/2012 2:45:08 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gator113

and make CNN and MSNBC televise every minute of it without commercial breaks.


26 posted on 03/28/2012 2:52:31 PM PDT by rod1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Scalia has one of those blend of qualities one rarely finds in a SC justice, the brilliance of distilling complex issues into simple terms coupled with a cutting sense of humor which is often reflected not only on the bench but also in the opinions he writes. He is the only justice where a reader of his opinions will guffaw while the reader is being enlightened


27 posted on 03/28/2012 2:59:44 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector
What I would like to know is what kind of a nerd could write in such legalese? And did they really misspell Individual at the top?

The section originally was headed as "INpIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY". I fixed the p into a D, didn't realize that wasn't the only typo.

And legislation is written for the benefit of lawyers, and the people who can afford to hire the most prominent ones. If legislation was easily and plainly understandable, that would negate their competitive advantage.

28 posted on 03/28/2012 3:12:57 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector
What I would like to know is what kind of a nerd could write in such legalese?

Clearly it would be a computer nerd who is very familiar with diff and patch.


29 posted on 03/28/2012 3:33:17 PM PDT by magooey (The Mandate of Heaven resides in the hearts of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
> Remember the SOTU where Obama ripped SCOTUS? What perfect revenge.

The SCOTUS doesn't need revenge against Obama. They'll step on this horrible law on its merits (lack thereof).

Even the most liberal members of SCOTUS wouldn't bother twisting their opinion for the sake of revenge.

But I will guess that there will be some private enjoyment of the verdict, regardless. :)

30 posted on 03/28/2012 5:01:03 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Lib heads are exploding everywhere and they are screaming he has no right to judge it until he reads whats in it. About Congress passing it into law without reading it? Thats fine with them.


31 posted on 03/28/2012 5:41:53 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

He has handed libs a MAJOR talking point by saying he will pass judgement on it without reading it. He thought he was being glib, but he should have kept his mouth shut.


32 posted on 03/28/2012 5:46:08 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch
"U.S. Constitution, Article Four, Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

This means that "being represented" is guaranteed by the Constitution. You cannot claim to represent an opinion on something you know nothing of. If you don't know whats in a bill, you have no way of knowing whether or not it is good or bad for those you claim to represent. If you didn't read the ENTIRE bill, all 2700 pages, you cannot Constitutionally represent your constituents with a yes or no vote. The fact that many have been quoted as not having read the bill in it's entirety before casting a vote means that the entire bill is unconstitutional from an Article Four, Section 4 standpoint all by itself.

33 posted on 03/28/2012 7:09:11 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

34 posted on 03/29/2012 12:37:19 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

>> The stupids in congress DIDN”T!!!

Damn straight. The crap should be ruled unconstitutional on that fact alone.


35 posted on 03/29/2012 12:39:15 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Obama put his signature to it and he had absolutely no idea what was in it.

Then again, he always refers to people that sign loan documents as being victims of those big bad banks.

Just close your eyes and sign on the dotted line. No need to know what the heck you are doing, Pharaoh Obama will take care of the details.

36 posted on 03/29/2012 12:50:08 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A day without Obama is like a day without a Tsunami.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson