Scalia Says Court Can’t Be Bothered To Read Obamacare:...

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/03/28/454099/scalia-says-court-cant-be-bothered-to-read-obamacare-you-really-want-us-to-go-through-these-2700-pages/

Scalia Says Court Can’t Be Bothered To Read Obamacare: ‘You Really Want Us To Go Through These 2,700 Pages?’

By Amanda Peterson Beadle on Mar 28, 2012 at 4:51 pm


During the last day of Supreme Court hearings about the Affordable Care Act, the justices covered whether or not the entire law could stand if the individual mandate was struck down and the law’s expansion of Medicaid. But Justice Antonin Scalia seemed surprised that someone would have expected the justices to read the text of the health care reform law before the hearings:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? (Laughter.) 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 one?

Maybe Scalia should have read the bill before he brought up the Cornhusker kickback during the hearing. As Dave Weigel notes, the plan Scalia brought up — a special deal added that would have funded Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion in perpetuity — was not in the final version of the Affordable Care Act that Congress passed.

To be clear, the Affordable Care Act is a very long bill, and it includes far more than just a provision requiring people to buy insurance. It has expanded insurance coverage for millions of people by allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until 26, and it prevents insurance companies from denying someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Scalia is brushing off a bill that could dramatically expand affordable health insurance to the 50 million Americans who are currently uninsured — that is, so long as the Supreme Court does not strike down the entire law.

[Live and Learn]

1. Hard to believe

I know it is true but I find I find it unimaginable that a SCOTUS member would think it appropriate to not even read the bill they are debating.

[onenote]

4. I think its safe to say that none of the Justices have read the entire law

and that none of think that they needed to do so. Appellate judges and justices decide cases based on the record and legal arguments presented to them.

I should add that in many if not most instances, justices and jduges don't read all of the briefs filed in a case, particularly a case with lots of "amicus" briefs. Rather, they rely on summaries of the briefs and accompanying memoranda of law prepared by their clerks. If they see something in the summary that grabs their attention, they may decide to read the brief itself, but not always.

[marshall]

5. Very few in Congress read the bill either

Remember Max Baucus saying: “I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the healthcare bill."

That's the way our government works.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Join the club. Does Congress read its own bills before voting?

Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2012, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

1:00 to 1:16

"We don't read most of the bills . . . "

[belcffub]

6. exactly... the members of congress

did not have the time between finalization of the bill and the voting to actually read it...

[Walk away]

3. There isn't much point in reading it when you already know the outcome.

It came from our President so every conservative must vote against it whatever it is. All conservatives have sworn to sabotage President Obama's efforts no matter how many Americans must suffer or die.

[PRETZEL]

8. When I first read this little snip from the WaPo,

before reading this thread, this little exchange came right to mind. Very end of the article.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-last-day-of-health-care-hearing-supreme-court-considers-severability-medicaid-expansion/2012/03/27/gIQAv2zkfS_story_1.html

(snip)

Scalia asked: “Mr. Clement, I didn’t take the time to figure this out, but maybe you did. Is there any chance at all that 26 states opposing it have Republican governors and all of the states supporting it have Democratic governors? Is that possible?”

“There’s a correlation, Justice Scalia,” Clement replied.

[HereSince1628]

7. That's why he discusses striking down parts of the law that aren't in the law.

Scalia mocks health care law ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ provision—that no longer exists
By Olivier Knox | The Ticket – 17 hrs ago

Email
15
Print

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia suggested on Wednesday that the Supreme Court could strike the "Cornhusker Kickback" from President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul without having to invalidate the whole law. He was right, in a way: The notorious provision isn't in the law.

The "Cornhusker Kickback" was the derogatory nickname of one of several sweetheart deals designed to ensure that the law had enough votes to pass. Amid a public uproar, lawmakers ultimately stripped the measure from the law.

But no one—not Scalia's eight colleagues on the highest court in the land, not Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, there to represent Obama, and not the superstar lawyer challenging the law on behalf of 26 states, Paul Clement—challenged his claim.

[Owlet]

9. Maybe it's time to term-limit Supreme Court Justices

It might help them focus a bit more on their job knowing that they are mortal, like the rest of us.

[tinrobot]

10. Eight Amendment - Cruel and unusual punishment?

If doing your job is cruel and unusual, then resign, Scalia.

[emulatorloo]

11. He's just spewing the dumbass talking points RoveCo and KochCo issued him