Justices to lawyers: Don't make us read the law

Politico ^

[LibertyRocks]

They only need to read ONE part - the NON SEVERABILITY CLAUSE!! If ANY portion of Obamacare is found Unconstitutional, then the ENTIRE LAW MUST be struck down! That’s the ONLY portion of text in the entire 2,700 pages that truly matters at this point.

Honestly though, it’s really sad that even our Supreme Court Justices are complaining about reading the actual text. I mean they’ve had over two years, it’s not like we didn’t all know this was going to end up in SCOTUS.

[NELSON111]

i just hope America is watching this disaster. Obamacare and it’s namesake.

And that was the best thing the right did...branding. We refused to use the right name...and our reps refused to use the right name. We branded the healthcare law as Obamacare...and now ALL the ills that will come from it will forever be associated with him in the minds of the people.

[longtermmemmory]

think about this as a practical exercise.

The law was PROHIBITED from being read before passage.

NOW in order to support the law the Obama lawyer wants 2700 boooooring pages read in 90 days WITH an opinion being written!

I be the clerks are really really happy (releaved) right now.

2700 pages in 90 days means 30 pages per day.

[SamuraiScot]

This will be a liberal talking point. "The right wing judges ruled on the law without even reading it."

Why waste time? The only part the justices really need to read is where it forces us to buy something. Then search the word "severable" in the digital version of the document. If it's not there, everything else is moot. It's un-Constitutional compost.

[Bigh4u2]

The courts are not required to read the law that is being argued.

It is up to the suing parties to present the ‘pertinent points’ of the law to the court, so it can be decided whether they are binding or Constitutional.

You can’t expect the courts to argue your case for you.

Ever been to a civil trial?

Attorneys ‘site’ parts of laws to argue their case before the court. They rarely ever site the entire law.

The courts are only required to rule on what is presented before them.

[Bigh4u2]

site = cite

:*(

[GnL]

That would be more reading than any of those Yale law clerks ever did in law school!

[Pollster1]

A vast majority of the House and the Senate didn’t read the entire law, our lazy President didn’t read the entire law and now the Justices are not reading the entire law. This suggests to me that unelected legislative staffers are running this country.

I read the entire law, sentence by sentence and word by word. I reread many sections to make sure I understood. I took notes for a couple hundred pages before I decided that was too much. Before opposing the bill (as I expected to do), I wanted to be sure it was as bad as the summaries implied. It's actually far worse than I expected.

[TLI]

“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.”

No bias there, huh?

eyes rolling...

.

[Albion Wilde]

I have a hard time understanding anyone supporting a law that congress didn't read, the senate didn't read,the president didn't read, and the supreme court didn't read.

[brydic1]

Why in all seriousness should these justices read this monstrous law since the Congress did not. It should be thrown out on the very basis that the Speaker of House for all practical purposes indicated that members of Congress did not read the proposed law merely saying that everyone should simply read the bill after it is passed.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

unelected legislative staffers are running this country.

Put term limits on staffers, not elected officials. Congress would slow to a crawl, and they wouldn't mess with stupid legislation, only have time to get real work done. Introducing legislation would take so much longer, they would have to put real thought and effort into it.

[ALPAPilot]

That should be reason enough for Obamacare to be declared unconstitutional. When legislation fails to be comprehensible for a citizen of reasonable understanding it is no longer a law and should be voided.

A corollary to ignorance of the law is no excuse, is that the law must be comprehensible.

[LibertyRocks]

I understand all that you are saying. However, as a CITIZEN of these United States, nevermind their positions in the government, it would be nice to know that they had read at least a few significant portions over the last few years. (Yes, I understand that they may have done so already, but it wouldn’t be brought up at this juncture because they are making a point to Obama’s lawyer, and as you pointed out they are to decide on what is presented to them by the parties appearing in court.)

In asking the justices to read the entire law and make ruling on each item it would seem that the Dems/Socialists are attempting to see just how far the courts would let them go in ignoring the Constitution if they were to propose an “amended” law in the future. (Think Alinsky and seeing how far you can go before you encounter resistance.)

[LibertyRocks]

Wow... Thanks for posting that image - I hadn’t seen it before.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This is actually a sad admission that justices can’t be bothered to read and understand that which they are adjudicating. One would think that familiarizing themselves with the subject matter of their concern would be part of the job description, all 2700 pages worth. That’s why they get paid the big bucks.

Congress is the source of this monstrosity, and it’s not certain that this “law,” written by one or more committees, has actually been read word-for-word by any one person. What is certain is that few Congressmen read even the half of it. Do you remember “You have to pass it to see what’s in it.” Do you remember discussions about “deeming” it passed? I’m not even sure that they legitimately conducted an up-or-down vote to pass the thing!

And that “legislative history” is what should put paid to the whole charade! No opportunity for our representatives to vet the bill = “taxation without representation” - tyranny.

[Maceman]

Why waste time?

I agree with you. I'm just talking about how the lefties in the media and the Democrat party will spin it in a relentless attack on the "conservative" SCOTUS.

[dr_lew]

Actually they do NOT have to read the entire Act to determine whether it or any part of it is constitutional.

Parts of it read like Maoism, with all these "community" organizations and authorities dictating health programs etc. on an individual basis, like the nation is one big fat camp. This thing's been law for two years now, but nobody knows what to do with it. It's an incredible disaster for this country.

[slowhandluke]

Assuming law is a form of logic, and it's the same logic used in science, then you do not need to understand the whole thing to prove it fails. If you can show that some mathematical proof includes '1+1=3' as part of it's logic, you get to assume the whole thing is wrong. If a patent application breaks the conservation of energy in any part, it's a perpetual motion machine and not patentable in whole.

If you want to fix the law, you might need to understand the whole thing. But to know that it's broken, you do not.

If the mandate part fails, the whole law fails. Whether the mandate is constitutional does not depend on any other part of the law. What part of this law do you think would change the fact of the mandate being unconstitutional?

Laws as complex as this one are made that complex only to hide things, and usually to hide tyrannical or corrupt things. We are lucky in this case that the tyrannical individual mandate is out in the open.