Posted on 03/28/2012 12:09:24 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
The court can rule on the major points of the legislation without reading all the minutia.
One of the libs on the bench, ginsberg I believe, said something to the effect they either have to strike it or see if parts can be salvaged. To me that says at a minimum part goes down 6 to 3. If it is not severable, in part because it is unintelligible, then the whole thing goes and there is morning in America again as the dark evening will have passed.
I bet little bammy is regretting his SOTU smart-azz remarks to the court as well.
But this thing gets even BETTER...
Still, Breyer seemed to take a shot at Scalia for suggesting that reading the law would be too much of a burden for the court.
“We can't reject or accept an argument on severability because it's a lot of work for us,” Breyer said.
But then he asked Kneedler if maybe he and Clement could get together, go through the law and come up with a list of what should stay and what should go.
Little bammy's commie care is a TOTAL disaster no matter who reads it?
Incredible...
.
Well, I guess they’re addressing a specific legal challenge. So it’s probably up to the lawyer arguing against the bill to point out the parts he’s objecting to. And it would be up to the defense to point to any other parts which might counter those claims. It’s not like they’re just handing the bill to the justices and asking them to read it and come back later to explain everything they did or didn’t like about it.
If they rule incorrectly, then someone who has read all if it can appeal. The have to strike it down to find out what's in it.
The House got the bill 3 hours before being forced to vote on it.
Shoot, we might even respect Barack Obama more if HE would do that.
This is legislation by hearsay, the way the laws have gotten so impossibly turgid (but even among those laws, Obamacare walks away with first prize).
The problem before the USSC seems simple enough however. It is alleged that this law is 1% “We will unconstitutionally screw you” and 99% “these are the impossibly grotty details about how.” Not even Scalia should have to suffer through trying to get a masterful understanding about the 99%.
They have to overturn it to find out what’s in it.
How can anyone read the entire law when they are adding to it every day.
The justices don't have to read the legislation letter by letter if the premis is it's very existence is, or major elements of it are unconstitutional.
Courts normally don’t singlehandedly generate actions on cases before them, but choose between competing motions and arguments by the parties disputing these cases. What this means is that pro-Obamacare people can’t just blithely tell the justices to throw the whole mess against the wall and admire what might seem to stick. No those people have to argue for it, all 2700 pages or whatever, if they really think it’s such an admirable beast. The opponents only have to point out what’s wrong.
I do not think the founders ever envisioned that the entire U.S. Code would encompass 2,700 typed pages (or the equivalent in parchment.)
We would be better off if all Federal laws fit on no more than 500 pages. Every time a page is added, one must be removed.
It is totally unrealistic to expect anyone to completely absorb and comprehend 2,700 pages of law in a lifetime, let alone a session. The law is unenforceable on its face, as being completely incomprehensible.
The members of Congress that passed this didn't read it themselves, nor did they actually write it.
If it's required the the SC justices comprehensively read what they're adjudicating, but not that Congress do the same for what they're voting on, Congress can pass anything they want and keep the SC from overturning it by paying people to write enough verbiage into it that it simply becomes impossible for someone to read it all.
The unelected legislative staffers just rotate employment and allegiance from election to election. K St. lobbyists and think tanks author the legislation and feed it to the staffers.
Actually they do NOT have to read the entire Act to determine whether it or any part of it is constitutional.
If the mandate is unconstitutional, the entire Act is unconstitutional because the Act does not make the mandate severable.
I get it now, Obama’s plan all along was to get a couple of the conservative justices to retire early by sending 2,700 pages of liberal claptrap over to them and telling them they have to read it.
What is sad, no disgusting, no sinister, is that 1 law gets written that is 2700 pages long.
so... congress won’t read the bill... the supreme court won’t read the bill...
yet I’M supposed to PAY for it and LIVE by it
bullsh*t
The first two parties should be reading the bill, but the Justices only need to review the bits under question.
It's not like they have line item veto rights. I am not a lawyer, but I think it's up to both sides presenting to highlight the relevant bits to their arguments, not for the Judges to have to use telepathy to see what the argument is.
There are flaws in this system, that if the plaintiff doesn't get the argument right, the plaintiff might be in the right and still lose. There is no responsibility on the part of the Judges to correct either sides presentation of their case. That's not to say that Kagan and the other leftists won't do so when they start discussing this behind closed doors.
It is actually much harder to understand than just reading 2700 pages. That is because much of the text of the law consists of making changes to OTHER laws that it merely references by statute number.
For example, it might say: "Subsection C, paragraph 5, hereby modifies USC 18 Section 3, subsection D, paragraph 8 by striking the word "and" and substituting the word "or"."
So unless you go read the other law that is being modified (which may consist of numerous pages in and of itself), you have absolutely no idea what this clause means or does. Now multiply that by the thousands of times this occurs in the bill, and you begin to get an idea of the complexity of the 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.