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

[Nachum]

...Reading entire health care law would be cruel and unusual punishment

True that

[Nachum]

The list, Ping

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

http://www.nachumlist.com/

[LibFreeUSA]

"THIS IS A BIG 'EFFING DEAL!"

[Responsibility2nd]

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.

[Thorliveshere]

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

Amen to that!!

[RetiredArmy]

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!!!

[oyez]

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

[SeekAndFind]

To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi:

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

[Venturer]

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

[EQAndyBuzz]

““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.

[Psycho_Bunny]

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.

[brytlea]

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

[MrB]

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.

[JimmyMc]

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.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

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.

[Jane Long]

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

[RavenLooneyToon]

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.

[rockinqsranch]

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.

[PapaBear3625]

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.

[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?