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

Politico ^ | 3/28/12 | Byron Tau

[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

[ctdonath2]

If they don't read the whole thing, upholding it should be considered an impeachable offense.

[ROTB]

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.

[Gator113]

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.

[VRW Conspirator]

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.

[stephenjohnbanker]

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

WINNER!

[rod1]

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

[chuckee]

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

[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?

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.

[magooey]

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.

[dayglored]

> 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. :)

[chessplayer]

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.

[chessplayer]

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.

[Uncle Sham]

"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.

[BuckeyeTexan]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

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

[Gene Eric]

>> The stupids in congress DIDN”T!!!

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

[Kickass Conservative]

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.