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

[kpete]

Source: Think Progress

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?

Read more: 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/

[HubertHeaver]

1. Then, Justice Scalia, why did you take the case? Do you want to rule in ignorance?

[CAPHAVOC]

15. Nobody has ever read read Obamacare.

Why start now? People might find out what is in it. It would ruin the surprise in 2015.

[truthisfreedom]

44. It's called the Affordable Care Act.

[FarPoint]

45. We do now know Scalia won't take responsibility to read the case...s does his Jr.; Clarence Thomas.

He's an arrogant, impotent old man....what a waste of an honorable chair. Makes a mockery of the position.

[Land Shark]

55. Scalia should - he's a "textualist" (nothing else to read)

One of the justices pointed that out in a very funny retort to the quote in the OP, saying that Scalia's clerks, at least, should have no problem reading all those pages since as textualists it is the only thing they generally like to read (especially the text of the Constitution).

[FarPoint]

69. OMG...

Scalia and Thomas....both just empty robes.Apparently common knowledge on the Hill. I'm delusional at times.

[nanabugg]

86. The most important case in recent history?? He could at least skim through it.

Law clerks will only find what they are looking for...predetermined.

[harun]

97. Have you looked at the bill? Didn't think so.

Repukes complain about the length. Bills are in HUGE font and HUGE margins. I read about 90% of it in an hour.

Stop repeating RW propaganda and stop calling it Obamacare.

[CAPHAVOC]

101. You must be a speed reader.

2000 pages in an hour. Whoa! That is 33 pages a minute and 2 pages a second. Call Guiness quick it is a World Record!

Obama calls it Obamacare why should I not? It is the nickname for it. Have you read the 10,000 pages of regulations so far written. And 20,000 more to come? Rube Goldberg could not even compete with this scheme. Is Medicare for all a "RW" propaganda?

[harun]

129. Look at the .pdf. You'll see what I mean.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:

[onenote]

132. I read legislation for a living and there is no way you read 90 percent of the ACA

Last edited Fri Mar 30, 2012, 01:21 AM - Edit history (1)

in an hour and understood what you were reading. None.Zilch. Nada.

I just finished reading a 26 page FCC Reform bill (HR 3309). Same font, margins, number of lines as the ACA. I had already read an earlier version of the bill a few days ago. It still took me 20 minutes to go through the current version reading it carefully enough to see if there were significant changes in the law. The ACA is a much more technical and dense bit of legislation and its ridiculous to claim you "read" it in an hour.

[harun]

135. Your missing the point, but I give up.

[Herlong]

137. NGU

[onenote]

139. If the point was that you made up a totally unbelievable load about reading the ACA in an hour

I didn't miss it at all.

If the point was that there is something wrong with the Justices acknowledging that they haven't read the entire ACA (something that Justices other than Scalia admitted), then you are the one missing the point. There was no reason for any of the Justices to read through the entire bill since the one point that the parties to the litigation agreed on was that whether the rest of the law should be allowed to remain in effect (i.e., should be deemed to be "severable" from the individual mandate) or should be struck down (i.e., be deemed not to be severable) did not require a separate evaluation of each provision in the law.

None of the legal arguments presented in the case required anyone to read the entire statute.

[CAPHAVOC]

143. Kagan worked on it.

She could tell them all what is in it.

[burrowowl]

159. She also told him that's

what the clerks are for: to read it!

[wordpix]

153. less than 2100 pgs, with 5 words/line each page, big whoop

I could read it all in a few hrs. Hire me, Fat Tony, since you don't know how to read.

[onenote]

156. You might be able to look at that many pages in a few hours, but comprehend it? Not a chance

Last edited Mon Apr 2, 2012, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Even folks who are experienced at reading legislation will tell you that to read and comprehend most pieces of legislation you need to allocate more than a couple of minutes per page. Some of the staffers I know on the Hill who had to review the ACA told me it took them well over a week to work their way through it.

For example, if you "read" the following section (which is not atypical of what is in the ACA), you wouldn't understand it unless you also dug out and read the provisions of law cross referenced and amended by this section. Its a daunting task.

SEC. 1562. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Applicability- Section 2735 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-21), as so redesignated by section 1001(4), is amended--

(1) by striking subsection (a);

(2) in subsection (b)--

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘1 through 3’ and inserting ‘1 and 2’; and

(B) in paragraph (2)--

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘subparagraph (D)’ and inserting ‘subparagraph (D) or (E)’;

(ii) by striking ‘1 through 3’ and inserting ‘1 and 2’; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:

‘(E) ELECTION NOT APPLICABLE- The election described in subparagraph (A) shall not be available with respect to the provisions of subpart 1.’;

(3) in subsection (c), by striking ‘1 through 3 shall not apply to any group’ and inserting ‘1 and 2 shall not apply to any individual coverage or any group’; and

(4) in subsection (d)--

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘1 through 3 shall not apply to any group’ and inserting ‘1 and 2 shall not apply to any individual coverage or any group’;

(B) in paragraph (2)--

(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘1 through 3 shall not apply to any group’ and inserting ‘1 and 2 shall not apply to any individual coverage or any group’; and

(ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘or, with respect to individual coverage, under any health insurance coverage maintained by the same health insurance issuer’; and

(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘any group’ and inserting ‘any individual coverage or any group’.

(b) Definitions- Section 2791(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(20) QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN- The term ‘qualified health plan’ has the meaning given such term in section 1301(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

‘(21) EXCHANGE- The term ‘Exchange’ means an American Health Benefit Exchange established under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.’.

(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments- Title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg et seq.) is amended--

(1) in section 2704 (42 U.S.C. 300gg), as so redesignated by section 1201(2)--

(A) in subsection (c)--

(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘group health plan’ each place that such term appears and inserting ‘group or individual health plan’; and

(ii) in paragraph (3)--

(I) by striking ‘group health insurance’ each place that such term appears and inserting ‘group or individual health insurance’; and

(II) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘small or large’ and inserting ‘individual or group’;

(B) in subsection (d), by striking ‘group health insurance’ each place that such term appears and inserting ‘group or individual health insurance’; and

(C) in subsection (e)(1)(A), by striking ‘group health insurance’ and inserting ‘group or individual health insurance’;

(2) by striking the second heading for subpart 2 of part A (relating to other requirements);

(3) in section 2725 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-4), as so redesignated by section 1001(2)--

(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage’ and inserting ‘health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage’;

(B) in subsection (b)--

(i) by striking ‘health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan’ in the matter preceding paragraph (1) and inserting ‘health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage’; and

(ii) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘plan’ and inserting ‘plan or coverage’;

(C) in subsection (c)--

(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘group health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer’ and inserting ‘health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage’; and

(ii) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘issuer’ and inserting ‘health insurance issuer’; and

(D) in subsection (e), by striking ‘health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage’ and inserting ‘health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage’;

(4) in section 2726 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-5), as so redesignated by section 1001(2)--

(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘(or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan)’ each place that such term appears and inserting ‘or a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage’;

(B) in subsection (b), by striking ‘(or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan)’ each place that such term appears and inserting ‘or a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage’; and

(C) in subsection (c)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘(and group health insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan)’ and inserting ‘and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage’;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘(or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan)’ each place that such term appears and inserting ‘or a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage’;

(5) in section 2727 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-6), as so redesignated by section 1001(2), by striking ‘health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans’ and inserting ‘and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage’;

(6) in section 2728 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-7), as so redesignated by section 1001(2)--

(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘health insurance coverage offered in connection with such plan’ and inserting ‘individual health insurance coverage’;

(B) in subsection (b)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘or a health insurance issuer that provides health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan’ and inserting ‘or a health insurance issuer that offers group or individual health insurance coverage’;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘health insurance coverage offered in connection with the plan’ and inserting ‘individual health insurance coverage’; and

(iii) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘health insurance coverage offered by an issuer in connection with such plan’ and inserting ‘individual health insurance coverage’;

(C) in subsection (c), by striking ‘health insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan’ and inserting ‘health insurance issuer that offers group or individual health insurance coverage’; and

(D) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ‘health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan’ and inserting ‘individual health insurance coverage’;

(7) by striking the heading for subpart 3;

(8) in section 2731 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-11), as so redesignated by section 1001(3)--

(A) by striking the section heading and all that follows through subsection (b);

(B) in subsection (c)--

(i) in paragraph (1)--

(I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘small group’ and inserting ‘group and individual’; and

(II) in subparagraph (B)--

(aa) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ‘and individuals’ after ‘employers’;

(bb) in clause (i), by inserting ‘or any additional individuals’ after ‘additional groups’; and

(cc) in clause (ii), by striking ‘without regard to the claims experience of those employers and their employees (and their dependents) or any health status-related factor relating to such’ and inserting ‘and individuals without regard to the claims experience of those individuals, employers and their employees (and their dependents) or any health status-related factor relating to such individuals’; and

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘small group’ and inserting ‘group or individual’;

(C) in subsection (d)--

(i) by striking ‘small group’ each place that such appears and inserting ‘group or individual’; and

(ii) in paragraph (1)(B)--

(I) by striking ‘all employers’ and inserting ‘all employers and individuals’;

(II) by striking ‘those employers’ and inserting ‘those individuals, employers’; and

(III) by striking ‘such employees’ and inserting ‘such individuals, employees’;

(D) by striking subsection (e);

(E) by striking subsection (f); and

(F) by transferring such section (as amended by this paragraph) to appear at the end of section 2702 (as added by section 1001(4));

(9) in section 2732 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-12), as so redesignated by section 1001(3)--

(A) by striking the section heading and all that follows through subsection (a);

(B) in subsection (b)--

(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘group health plan in the small or large group market’ and inserting ‘health insurance coverage offered in the group or individual market’;

(ii) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘, or individual, as applicable,’ after ‘plan sponsor’;

(iii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘, or individual, as applicable,’ after ‘plan sponsor’; and

(iv) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

‘(3) VIOLATION OF PARTICIPATION OR CONTRIBUTION RATES- In the case of a group health plan, the plan sponsor has failed to comply with a material plan provision relating to employer contribution or group participation rules, pursuant to applicable State law.’;

(C) in subsection (c)--

(i) in paragraph (1)--

(I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘group health insurance coverage offered in the small or large group market’ and inserting ‘group or individual health insurance coverage’;

(II) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘or individual, as applicable,’ after ‘plan sponsor’;

(III) in subparagraph (B)--

(aa) by inserting ‘or individual, as applicable,’ after ‘plan sponsor’; and

(bb) by inserting ‘or individual health insurance coverage’; and

(IV) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘or individuals, as applicable,’ after ‘those sponsors’; and

(ii) in paragraph (2)(A)--

(I) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ‘small group market or the large group market, or both markets,’ and inserting ‘individual or group market, or all markets,’; and

(II) in clause (i), by inserting ‘or individual, as applicable,’ after ‘plan sponsor’; and

(D) by transferring such section (as amended by this paragraph) to appear at the end of section 2703 (as added by section 1001(4));

(10) in section 2733 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-13), as so redesignated by section 1001(4)--

(A) in subsection (a)--

(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘small employer’ and inserting ‘small employer or an individual’;

(ii) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘, or individual, as applicable,’ after ‘employer’ each place that such appears; and

(iii) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘small employer’ and inserting ‘employer, or individual, as applicable,’;

(B) in subsection (b)--

(i) in paragraph (1)--

(I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘small employer’ and inserting ‘employer, or individual, as applicable,’;

(II) in subparagraph (A), by adding ‘and’ at the end;

(III) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C); and

(IV) in subparagraph (D)--

(aa) by inserting ‘, or individual, as applicable,’ after ‘employer’; and

(bb) by redesignating such subparagraph as subparagraph (B);

(ii) in paragraph (2)--

(I) by striking ‘small employers’ each place that such term appears and inserting ‘employers, or individuals, as applicable,’; and

(II) by striking ‘small employer’ and inserting ‘employer, or individual, as applicable,’; and

(C) by redesignating such section (as amended by this paragraph) as section 2709 and transferring such section to appear after section 2708 (as added by section 1001(5));

(11) by redesignating subpart 4 as subpart 2;

(12) in section 2735 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-21), as so redesignated by section 1001(4)--

(A) by striking subsection (a);

(B) by striking ‘subparts 1 through 3’ each place that such appears and inserting ‘subpart 1’;

(C) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as subsections (a) through (d), respectively; and

(D) by redesignating such section (as amended by this paragraph) as section 2722;

(13) in section 2736 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-22), as so redesignated by section 1001(4)--

(A) in subsection (a)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘small or large group markets’ and inserting ‘individual or group market’; and

(ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘or individual health insurance coverage’ after ‘group health plans’;

(B) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by inserting ‘individual health insurance coverage or’ after ‘respect to’; and

(C) by redesignating such section (as amended by this paragraph) as section 2723;

(14) in section 2737(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300gg-23), as so redesignated by section 1001(4)--

(A) by inserting ‘individual or’ before ‘group health insurance’; and

(B) by redesignating such section(as amended by this paragraph) as section 2724;

(15) in section 2762 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-62)--

(A) in the section heading by inserting ‘and application’ before the period; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

‘(c) Application of Part A Provisions-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The provisions of part A shall apply to health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in the individual market in a State as provided for in such part.

‘(2) CLARIFICATION- To the extent that any provision of this part conflicts with a provision of part A with respect to health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in the individual market in a State, the provisions of such part A shall apply.’; and

(16) in section 2791(e) (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(e))--

(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘51’ and inserting ‘101’; and

(B) in paragraph (4)--

(i) by striking ‘at least 2’ each place that such appears and inserting ‘at least 1’; and

(ii) by striking ‘50’ and inserting ‘100’.

(d) Application- Notwithstanding any other provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, nothing in such Act (or an amendment made by such Act) shall be construed to--

(1) prohibit (or authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations that prohibit) a group health plan or health insurance issuer from carrying out utilization management techniques that are commonly used as of the date of enactment of this Act; or

(2) restrict the application of the amendments made by this subtitle.

(e) Technical Amendment to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974- Subpart B of part 7 of subtitle A of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1181 et. seq.) is amended, by adding at the end the following:

‘SEC. 715. ADDITIONAL MARKET REFORMS.
‘(a) General Rule- Except as provided in subsection (b)--

‘(1) the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) shall apply to group health plans, and health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans, as if included in this subpart; and

‘(2) to the extent that any provision of this part conflicts with a provision of such part A with respect to group health plans, or health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans, the provisions of such part A shall apply.

‘(b) Exception- Notwithstanding subsection (a), the provisions of sections 2716 and 2718 of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) shall not apply with respect to self-insured group health plans, and the provisions of this part shall continue to apply to such plans as if such sections of the Public Health Service Act (as so amended) had not been enacted.’.

(f) Technical Amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986- Subchapter B of chapter 100 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following.....SNIP.

[harun]

163. +1, exactly and no one asked them to go through the whole thing. He is just

grandstanding.

[onenote]

164. Not grandstanding. Making a point. The same as Breyer, who asked pretty much the same thing

Wondering whether the validity of each section should be separately argued, a task he (Breyer) suggested would take a year.

As for your "exactly" -- I sure hope you aren't sticking by the claim that it would be possible to read through and comprehend the ACA in a matter of hours. Because, as every Justice understood, that's nonsensical.

[Politicub]

141. I read it. It's important legislation, and it is your responsibility to be informed

It's not surprising that Scalia is intellectually lazy. He and a lot of others take pride in forming opinions about what they know little about.

It's worth taking the time at least to know what rights are about to be stripped away from you if the conservative bloc strikes the law down.

[onenote]

142. Do you mind my asking how long it took to read it?

[Politicub]

144. Don't remember. It's been a while

I downloaded the pdf and read it on my kindle.

It was in at least 12 point font, wide margins and triple spaced. I don't remember it taking a burdensome amount of time.

[onenote]

145. The reason I ask is that Hill staffers I know who had to review it when it was under consideration

complained that it took them days to work their way through it. WHich isn't surprising since even in standard 24 line/wide margin format, it was over 2500 pages, which works out, at a minute a page, to over 40 hours. And that's not taking into account the amount of time that one has to spend cross referencing many of the provisions to other provisions in existing law (such as the provisions in the ACA that merely state something like "Section 38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to current year business credit) is amended by striking ‘‘plus’’ at the end of paragraph (34), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (35) and inserting ‘‘,plus’’, and by inserting after paragraph (35) the following: ‘‘(36) the small employer health insurance credit determined under section 45R.’’.

When you read the bill did you actually understand what that provision meant without digging out a copy of the Internal Revenue Code? If you did, kudos to you. But for most people, reading -- as in actually comprehending -- this bill all the way through would take a very long time.

[Politicub]

146. Wonky is how I roll

But thanks for the trivia.

[wordpix]

154. the pdf referred to here has about 5 words/line and would take little time to read a page

[onenote]

157. See post #156

You are fooling yourself if you think you could comprehend this bill in a few hours.

Put another way...I could "read" a book written in a language I didn't understand in a few hours. If I had to figure out what it meant...that would take a lot longer. The ACA is not written in a language anyone can understand without referencing other laws and regulations.

[wordpix]

160. OK, say it takes 10 hr to read and understand fully, or 20 hr

A SCOTUS case is before Justice Fat Tony. He should read the legislation before making a pronouncement on it. And adding 600+ pages to bolster his argument that it's "too long" shows he adds evidence that does not exist.

[onenote]

161. Probably more like 10 to 20 days.

Seriously. Take a look at the section I posted. My bet is that it would take you a several hours to read, cross reference and comprehend that one section.

But the larger point is that, as others have pointed out, there was no reason for Scalia or any other justice to read the entire act. Justice Breyer acknowledged this during the argument when he jokingly gave his "promise" that he had not read every word of it.
Neither party was arguing that the Act should be reviewed section by section. One side wanted it struck down in its entirely on the grounds that the individual mandate was the heart of the bill and that the court should find that the rest of the bill, no matter what the individual sections say or do, would not have been enacted without the "heart" of the bill. The other side argued that even if the individual mandate was invalidated, the court should leave it to Congress to decide whether and how to "fix" the bill. But, again, no one was arguing that the appropriate way to resolve whether the individual mandate and the rest of the bill were severable from each other was to review and pass judgment on the severability of every single section of the law one section at a time. Thus, if anything, reading the bill all the way through would have been "adding evidence" not relevant to the legal question before the court.

[abelenkpe]

2. Whaaaaaat?!

Yes I expect that fat lazy bastard to read what he's about to give an opinion on. WTF?

[JDPriestly]

3. He could divide up the work with his law clerks.

That someone like Scalia has so much power is what is unrealistic.

He has plenty of time to give speeches and fell important.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. You granted certiorari and you didn't have to.

But now that you have the case you better do your damn job. So read the statute, you fat fuck.

[anti-alec]

5. If the Esteemed Justice can't be bothered to read the whole thing

Then the esteemed Justice can tender his resignation to Barack H. Obama as soon as possible.

And take your talking dummy with you - that's Justice Clarence "Pervert" Thomas. He doesn't work.

[yankeepants]

6. Must be the job doesn't pay enough.

well, not as much as a Koch job anyhow.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. IMO, it's kind of absurd that a piece of legislation is 2700 pages to begin with.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assign a bulk of the reading to law clerks while the Justices read the pertinent sections of the bill for themselves in detail (and any related sections).

[global1]

47. Look - Our Healthcare System Is Really Complicated.....

I'm surprised that they were able to keep it down to 2700 pages. It is not absurd that it is 2700 pages. Have you ever looked at the law? Have you ever read it? Just take a look at the Table of Contents and you will see what all is covered in this law.

It is evident to me that whomever put this 2700 pages together really did a find job.

[MattSh]

88. No, I did not read this...

How many in Congress do you think actually read this law?

......... <=== Your answer here.

Wow, you think that many actually read it?

[SuisseBleu]

162. only problem is

it is 2,700 pages and opens more questions that it answers. There will need to be another 20,000 pages to explain what was meant in the first 2,700. In fact, not even Congress has read the bill and they voted on it. The most important part of this process will be the implementation of the bill which with be a beaurocratic nightmare.

[global1]

8. Well If You Are Going To Decide The Fate Of Healthcare For 300+ Million Americans......

your damn right I really expect you to do that Mr. Scalia!!!!!!!!!

[Beacool]

150. Why?

Even Nancy Pelosi didn't read the whole thing.

[Ikonoklast]

9. That's your job, you fat turdling.

What the fuck???

He has already made up his mind, if he decided against reading what he is ruling on.

[Hawkowl]

10. Did you hear that?

That was the hammer driving the final nail into the coffin of Democracy. Everyone should now be able to recognize how fucked we are.

[Dont call me Shirley]

11. You should have read the bill before you heard the case!

That IS YOUR resonsibility.

BTW: You nor any SCJ have the right to rule on the constitutionality of any laws passed by congress. That is not a power given you in the US Constitution.

[kestrel91316]

39. Uh, yes they do. It's part of that whole checks and balances thing.

[Ruby the Liberal]

46. Really? Then what is their role?

[KG]

60. that's the function of the SC.

[ElboRuum]

63. Uh, that is totally a function of the SC.

[Codeine]

66. Wait, wut?

Isn't that pretty much precisely the function of the SC?

[wpelb]

67. Marbury v. Madison

The Court gave itself the right to review the constitutionality of laws in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Many on both sides of the political spectrum have had problems with that ruling; I had a pre-law prof who said it's considered one of the Court's worst decisions (along with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson).

[fasttense]

90. Just because the Supremes took it upon themselves to be the final arbiters

of what is and isn't constitutional does NOT make it well...Constitutional.

Yes, the Supremes have overreached their authority even in Marbury v. Madison. The president has overreached too by taking on War powers and the kingly power to murder anyone at will. It's basically because the Senate and the House have allowed it. It's because very few in the federal government takes their oath seriously. They take an oath to the US Constitution NOT to the president, NOT to their Political party, NOT to Norquest, NOT to the people who voted them in, NOT to lobbyists and rich men. Very few people even attempt to uphold their interpretation of the Constitution. They go along with their party, with the president, with the status quo. It's easier than thinking for themselves.

But the Constitution never made the Supremes the final arbiters of the Constitution. We The People are the final arbiters. Our job is to vote out those who do NOT uphold the Constitution as we read it and interpret it. Unfortunately, it's easier to go along with political parties, the status quo and popular opinion. So, most people don't even judge their representatives based on their interpretation of the Constitution.

[newspeak]

100. those were really ignorant decisions

however, the present scotus is trying to top it with bush v. gore and citizens united ruling. Yep, they'll go down in history as some of the most self interested, greedy, partisan cretins.

[ThomThom]

70. If the SC doesn't decide if a law is constitutional who does?

The people do not have the expertise to read and understand law. What is to stop Congress from passing unconstitutional laws? Or will we, the people, decide by popular consent? Half the people don't even vote. We need lawyers to determine constitutionality. That is why the job of justice takes our best legal people. What have is a partisan bunch of hacks who won't even be bothered to read and discuss what comes before them. Thank the republicons for the state of this situation and most other problems we face.

[fasttense]

89. It's NOT in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say the Supremes have the final say on the Constitution’s meaning. The Supremes are suppose to interpret the law. Not create and destroy laws by declaring from their thrones if a law is constitutional or not.

We the people are suppose to determine if a law is constitutional by voting out bad law making legislative representatives. You don't have to have expertise to read the few pages of the Constitution and make up your own mind. Every member of the federal government takes an oath to the Constitution. By that oath, they are saying they will interpret the constitution and act accordingly. We don't need a group of unelected lawyers to create law from their thrones based on who gives them the biggest bribe.

[ThomThom]

91. you have said it so well....I wish we could make that would work

when we have bought and paid for representatives and non-thinking public it is tough
it always comes back to campaign finance reform
not everything is in the Constitution, some times we have to work it out. Which takes people like Jefferson to create a plan.

[MD20]

92. AMEN!

I have to agree with you.

The sad part is that I think some of the SCOTUS justices are just plain incompetent. Their clerks are really the ones doing the research and making the decisions while their SCJ overlords take credit. But again, what kind of democracy do we live in when the common people are constantly taken out of the political loop by the implementation of ambiguous jargon that dominates the whole political spectrum.

Sadder still is the reality that the Supreme Court has sometimes defied logic by making illogical decisions just for partisan or political expediency. And, oh, yeah, BTW... they don't have to read much to do that!

[Brooklyn Dame]

12. Scalia just proved himself to be a pure wingnut...

That is how the far Right (wrongs) have governed -- pass laws that they don't read, propose laws that they don't study the impact of. They're all store bought and paid for.

http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2012/03/scotus-a-vote-of-no-confidence/

[julian09]

13. How long ago did they know that this hearing was coming up?

The law is now two years old. they are off July, August and Sept every year. They knew the law was controvercial and headed their way.

[JoePhilly]

14. He's like every other Republican in this country ... waits for Fox news to tell him what it says.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

16. Once again, a conservative relies on 'truthiness'

Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

See Scalia

source

Thank you, Stephen Colbert!

[SWTORFanatic]

17. Scalia on the constitution or any legal document: tl;dr

[tblue37]

72. What does "tl;dr" mean? nt

[Occulus]

74. too long; didn't read n/t

[tblue37]

76. Thanks! nt

[Justice wanted]

18. Our Fuckin "Supreme Court" is nothing but a Fuckin JOKE

[gratuitous]

19. I think this is in reference to the severability issue

Which is to say, how interwoven is the individual mandate to the fabric of the entire bill? Does the legislation fall completely to pieces if the individual mandate part is deemed unconstitutional? Or can the Act remain largely intact, but without the individual mandate? What parts of the Act have to go if the individual mandate goes?

That would require a pretty thorough sifting of the Act and its various parts. Scalia is basically saying he'd prefer not to have to do that, and I can't say that I blame him. Is the Court obliged to render an opinion on each and every part of the Act and its connectedness to the individual mandate, or is that a task that Congress should have to take up? Congress, of course, could object to an Eighth Amendment violation causing them to rewrite legislation without any clue about how the Supreme Court might rule about any of the choices they might make. That's pretty unrealistic, too.

As to what sort of task the Court took on when it granted cert in the first place, there have been contradictory rulings in the lower courts as to various sections of the Act. The only body that has the power to iron out those differences is the Supreme Court.

It's always a dicey business predicting how a court might rule based on what happens at oral argument. Unanticipated issues might crop up late in the process, and color how the judges perceive the issues long after the lawyers have gone home. Talking it over with the other judges, one or another judge might change his or her mind. Even the very process of writing the opinion can cause a judge to reconsider how the ruling goes. Considering all these factors, it's a fool's game to try to predict the outcome of this very complicated legislation. There are so many moving parts, the Court might just get to the point where it decides that while they would have written parts of the Act differently, Congress has the power to write and enact such legislation, and decline to pass judgment on portions they disagree with.

[savalez]

37. I think so too.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/argument-recap-a-lift-for-the-mandate/

[Tumbulu]

49. I agree with you (nt)

[Neue Regel]

20. John Conyers, Steny Hoyer, and Max Baucus agree with him

And many others, I'm sure

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115749-sen-baucus-suggests-he-did-not-read-entire-health-bill

“I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the healthcare bill,” Baucus said, according to the Flathead Beacon. “You know why? It’s statutory language. ... We hire experts.”

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/07/08/democratic-leader-laughs-at-reading-the-healthcare-bill-before-passing-it

Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the U.S House of Representatives, provided a valuable window on the mindset of the chamber's leadership Tuesday when he all but admitted that few if any members of Congress would read the healthcare reform bill before voting for it.

"If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes," Hoyer told CNSNews at his regular weekly news conference.

Of course it is not as bad as all that because "... staff and review boards, they read [the bills] in their entirety. They go over it with members, and members read substantial portions of the bill themselves," Hoyer allowed before veering off in another direction.

&feature=related

"Why would I read the health care bill?"

[Dawson Leery]

21. Then why did you take the case?

[wandy]

22. I suspect they don't have to read it because it was already decided....

Gonna be another one of those 5/4 things. But we knew that 3 years ago.

[CAPHAVOC]

25. They Strike it so they don"t have to read it.

Best reason yet.

[KansDem]

23. What a lazy ass!

Good paying job. Good government-provided healthcare. Vacation. Benefits.

I'd like to have his job if all I did was sit around in a robe and whine all day...

[Leontius]

24. Ok Scalia is a bit of a dick but did any of our esteemed legislators

read the bill either.

[bbinacan]

29. No they didn't n/t

[slampoet]

26. LAZY AND LIVING OFF THE GOVERNMENT.

[Swede Atlanta]

27. That's your job you nitwit

[former9thward]

28. No single person has read the entire health care bill.

Even Nancy Pelosi said "We have to pass this bill you so can find out what is in it."

On this point Scalia is correct. Justices do not read the full text of laws they are judging. That is not their job. They make their decisions based on the challenges to the law and the defense of the law. You don;t need to read the text of the law to do that. In the Health Care law only a couple of provisions in the law are being challenged. It would serve no purpose to read the 90% of the law that is not being challenged.

[bbinacan]

32. Excellent point! n/t

[One_Life_To_Give]

38. Scalia may have a better memory than many DUers

Possible he was looking for an excuse to get a did in with reference to your liked comments from our Speaker.

[Jack Rabbit]

68. Hmmmm . . .

If Betsy McCaughey is an attorney for the plaintiffs, the justices might want to read the act before they let her tell them what's in it.

Betsy McCaughey with Jon Stewart, part 1 and part 2

[Jim Lane]

79. I agree with you about the Justices reading it. Some of the lawyers might have read it all.

As I elaborated in #78 below, the way it works is that the contending sides use their briefs to identify the provisions that are relevant to the argument, and the Justices read those parts.

What went on at the law firms? Probably they divided it up, but it's possible that some lawyer(s) read the whole thing.

[joshcryer]

81. Nice channel that video is posted on.

A right winger to the core.

Right wing smears.

[former9thward]

84. So they made up her speech?

[joshcryer]

85. She's not saying what the right wingers and you are saying she's saying.

She is not saying that at all.

[former9thward]

99. What is she sayings?

[joshcryer]

121. The right wing is trying to imply that she doesn't know what's in it.

She's saying you don't know what's in it because of right wing propaganda and that once it's passed the benefits will be made clear to the American people, and "they will see what is in it."

[SATIRical]

115. Context

Here is the context I found of her speech. So what is she saying?

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation—innovation begins in the classroom—clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.”

http://www.democraticleader.gov/news/speeches?id=0249

[joshcryer]

120. She is saying that the American people don't know what's in it.

And that the propaganda from the MSM (and the authoritarian left) is in fact not true.

[former9thward]

134. So you think the American people know what is in those 2700 pages?

Ok. No more need be said.

[bbinacan]

30. Nobody else has read this bill

why start now?

[Jamaal510]

33. According to Scalia,

[IMG][/IMG]

[savalez]

34. I believe comment is related to asking SCOTUS to do the job of Congress.

The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that. A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress. They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform. The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/argument-recap-a-lift-for-the-mandate/

[spooky3]

35. "Why waste all that time reading when I've already made up my mind how I will vote?"

[MD20]

36. 2000 of those 2700 pages are probably "pork."

I really don't care for Scalia or his lackey, Thomas. But he does have a point. 2000 of those 2700 pages are likely "pork."

There should be a limit on the number of pages in potential laws submitted to SCOTUS. Also, the use of "legalese" to discourage the average American from reading and understanding such laws should be kept to a minimum.

I don't need to be told in "Greek" what the law entails. And, I don't need to wade through tons of irrelevant documentation to get to the law in contention! Scalia is right on that one; but, true to his sedentary conservative creed, he will do nothing about it. How easy would it have been for the Court to demand restrictions on the size of documents submitted for their ultimate review!

As a safe guard, any potential law must be considered by SCOTUS without regard to any surreptitious attatchments before it becomes the law of the land. Wouldn't that be nice?

[BB_Troll]

52. I agree with your point

There should be a House rule that states no bills can exceed a page count of 100, or something like that. When the bill is posted 72 hours before the vote, we can all have a legitimate chance to give an informed opinion.

Wouldn't someone have to go through the 2700 pages in order to figure out which ones don't matter? And if they forget a page, what would the penalty be?

[FarCenter]

77. 25 lines per page, less than 60 characters per line

It probably amounts to well under 1000 pages in the real world.

[teddy51]

40. No, we pay you for your "Good looks, charm and personality" you dumb ass. Of course we want you

to read it, otherwise how can you rule on it. Geez

[secondwind]

41. They say it is double-and-triple-spaced, about the size of a

Harry Potter novel... What's the big deal?

[SomethingFishy]

42. Why should SCOTUS be any different than Congress?

Our fearless leaders vote on shit all the time without reading it.

The Patriot Act, the most unconstitutional law ever passed in our nation, so bad and so unconstitutional that it was designed to "SUNSET" after 4 years. Yeah that worked real well...
I defy anyone to find one Congressman who actually read the entire bill before voting on it. Shit I bet most of Congress still has no idea what is in it.

We don't even have a law requiring elected officials to read and understand a bill before voting on it.

[sulphurdunn]

43. Fat Tony's

comments were nothing but a calculated insult aimed at the federal attorney and a dog whistle that neither he nor Slappy Tomas will be going off the reservation on this one.

[PatrynXX]

48. hate to break this to you justice but....

there's this line from a Michael Moore movie. "ahem we don't read most of the bills we pass." So logically any bill that they can't read.. can't pass from now on according to the supreme court.. X_X

[muntrv]

50. Yes, it's your job, asshole!

[csziggy]

51. Then maybe Scalia agrees that H.R.676 Medicare for ALL should have been passed

‘‘Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act’’ was only 30 pages long!
http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/docs/2011/HR676-Feb-11-2011.pdf

[BB_Troll]

53. CBO nightmare

Wouldn't we have to get that Medicare vote in before the CBO can issue their report? Sure sounds like it needs a rush job.

[csziggy]

65. That bill never made it out of committee so the CBO never scored it

But similar bills were scored by the CBO:

The CBO is required to score bills that are reported out of committee in either chamber, so such a vote would have required it to score H.R. 676. But because Nancy Pelosi and other House leaders thought a single-payer vote would hurt the chances of passing the main health reform bill, they rebuffed Weiner and the floor vote didn’t come, H.R. 676 never made it out of committee, and thus the CBO was not required to score it. It sometimes provides estimates for bills that have not made it out of committee, but in this case, it did not.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t data on the budgetary impact of greatly expanding publicly-provided health care. In 2007 and 2009, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) introduced the “AmeriCare Health Care Act,” which would automatically enroll Americans in a Medicare-like public plan at birth and allow employers to choose between covering their employees or paying into the public plan to cover them.

The plan would be financed through these employee contributions as well as premiums and state contributions equal to their previous spending on Medicaid and S-CHIP, which would be rolled into the public plan. Unlike H.R. 676, the AmeriCare bill doesn’t force providers to go nonprofit, and, importantly, it maintains a role for private insurers. People are free to opt out of the public plan and keep their employer-based health plan if they wish. This means it’s not a single-payer plan, but it’s the closest thing for which we have reliable numbers.

Those numbers come courtesy of the Commonwealth Fund, which commissioned the Lewin Group to take a look at AmeriCare and a few other health-care proposals in 2009. The resulting study predicts that, because of a public plan’s lower provider reimbursement rates and administrative costs, as well as its ability to negotiate down drug prices, enacting the bill would have resulted in $58.1 billion less annual health spending in 2010. It would increase the federal deficit by $188.5 billion a year, and employers would pay $61.5 billion more annually, but state and local governments would save $83.6 billion, and households a whopping $224.5 billion.

http://pnhpcalifornia.org/2011/07/research-desk-how-much-would-single-payer-cost/

[magic59]

54. He's the same fat bastard that said people need more exercise, not healthcare.

Like that's going to stop cancer, or a stroke. Typical spoiled brat GOP pig with too much power.

[PatrynXX]

56. I'm thinking millions of children are going to laugh all at once

for reading all 7 harry potter books more than once all the way through. 2700 pages? is that all???

not like 15,000 pages. which if your reading LOTR on a Droid X, is how many pages you'll be reading..

[abq e streeter]

57. At least the Democrats in the Senate tried to block his nomination (yes, that's BITTER sarcasm)

Scalia was confirmed on September 17, 1986 by a vote of 98-0.

[OhioChick]

58. Isn't that their job?? n/t

[robinlynne]

59. That's ok with me. RECUSE him.

[onenote]

111. For admitting he didn't read the entire law?

If that's grounds for recusal, you're going to probably have to recuse all nine justices since its a safe bet that none of them read the entire law. Indeed, both sides of the case argued that the court didn't have to resolve the severability of each provision. And even before Scalia made his statement, Justice Breyer had acknowledged (actually "promised&quot that he had not read every word of the law.

[robinlynne]

123. for saying reading the law would be cruel and unusual punishment which is what he said. Dont

want to read it? Step down.

[onenote]

124. You really shouldn't opine on things you don't understand

There was no reason for any of the Justices to read the entire law and none of them did. If you bothered to read the briefs and the transcript of the oral argument you would understand that both sides in this case took the position that the decision on the issue of severability did not require an analysis of each provision of the law.

[robinlynne]

125. That is not the point. Scalia made a joke calling it cruel and unusual punishment. Do you think

there is any chance he might rule objectively?
at all.
A juror saying that would be removed from a trial.

[onenote]

126. And Breyer jokingly said that he "promised" that he hadn't read every word.

Again, you've obviously never attended a SCOTUS argument. There often are lighthearted exchanges between the Justices and the lawyers and/or between the Justices. At another point in the argument on Wednesday afternoon, there was a riff between Scalia and his fellow Justices (including Kennedy and Sotomayor) on old Jack Benny and Henny Youngman routines.

Your comparison between what would happen if a juror spoke during a trial and a judge speaking is quite bizarre, by the way.

[robinlynne]

128. I didnt know Breyer said that. Yes I have watched many many hours of the Supreme Court.

[Botany]

61. Yes tony I expect you to read it or to read the summations by your clerks.

And if not then don't waste the people's time and money hearing the
case. Justice Brennan read 1,000+ pages of work every week when the
court was in session and when asked did he feel sorry for himself he said
no because that is what my job has me do.

[Cass]

62. Yeah, damn right I expect it. That's what they are paid to do.

How the hell else are they going to make an informed decision? They can't very well make a decision without reading the document! I'm sorry but this is just lame, lame, lame.

[ThomThom]

64. Don't the clerks do most of the work?

Doesn't he know laws are long and complicated?
Where has he been?

[Orrex]

71. On what, exactly, will Scalia be basing his ruling, if not on the law?

[RKP5637]

73. I guess this will be 'decision by guess,' and F the majority of Americas, who gives a

damn about them anyway. We haven't had a democracy now for quite awhile. Citizens of the US are just in the way of the oligarchy.

[liberal N proud]

75. So the court is going to decide on something they refuse to completely understand?

How can that be constitutional?

The justices should be impeached for failing to effectively perform the task for which they have been charged.

They are not going to read it but their decision isn't going to be based on emotion or personal feelings.

[Jim Lane]

78. I'm no Scalia fan but these attacks on him are ridiculous.

Judges have to do a lot of reading but it's silly to think they would sit down and read a lengthy statute like this one from beginning to end.

What happens in the real world is that the lawyers for both sides pore over the statute so that they can cite or quote relevant passages in their briefs. Wherever there's a disagreement about the meaning of a particular passage, the judges go read that, and as much else around it as is necessary to give it context. If the context is that there's something 200 pages away that, for example, gives certain people an exemption from the quoted passage, the judges rely on the lawyers to call their attention to that if it's relevant to the argument.

The longest thing I've ever had to read was the transcript of a six-week trial. It ran about 3,200 pages. I read every freaking word, taking detailed notes, and then wrote a brief that was replete with citations to specific pages in the transcript. So did my adversary. There was post-trial briefing and then an appeal, and I very much doubt that any of those judges read the whole transcript.

I also very much doubt that any of the Justices on the Supreme Court will read the entire ACA. That's simply not how the system works and it's not how it should work.

[unkachuck]

80. if you can read....

....3200 pages, why can't fat-tony and his shills read 2700 pages? If he didn't want to read long legislation that impacts hundreds of millions of people, why did he take the supreme justice gig in the first place?

....yes, fat-tony should read ever last word of it, before he rejects it....

[Jim Lane]

82. It took me a few weeks. The Justices don't have that luxury.

There were other cases before them last week, and there'll be others next week. All of those cases will have briefs that should be read.

Furthermore, reading raw statutory text isn't the best use of a Justice's time. It really is more efficient for them to read the briefs, to read the parts of the statute that the lawyers highlight, and to read the precedents that the lawyers cite.

BTW, I don't think that "fat-tony and his shills" are the only ones who didn't read 2700 pages. My guess is that none of the svelte liberals on the Court read the whole thing, either.

[wordpix]

155. fat tony has plenty of time to go to Repug fundraisers, though, and stuff his face

I don't buy that he "doesn't have that luxury."

[unkachuck]

158. 'I don't buy that he "doesn't have that luxury."'

....exactly....he has plenty of time and luxury....

....the fat-tony standard, "If progressive legislation is too big to read, it's too big to exist."

[MD20]

83. Just curious!

Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2012, 01:25 AM - Edit history (1)

"I also very much doubt that any of the Justices on the Supreme Court will read the entire ACA. That's simply not how the system works and it's not how it should work."

Just how SHOULD it work? We might finally become a democracy if the law makers would just *K. I.S.S.* so common people can understand what is being done to them. After all ,we are paying for all this jargon and legalese.

** Keep it simple stupid This pejorative is not meant fo you sir, its meant for Congress!

[Jim Lane]

104. Sorry, what you want is simply not possible.

In an advanced industrial society of 300 million people, the legal structure gets complicated. If you were to try writing the ACA in a substantially shorter form, you'd find that you were leaving all sorts of ambiguities.

The only way to have short, understandable bills on subjects like this would be to confer huge (possibly unconstitutional) amounts of administrative discretion. To have "a government of laws and not of men" (in the classical formulation), we have to have laws that are fairly detailed.

[adigal]

94. So they should rule based on what lawyers tell them??

I guess I should grade papers based on what the students tell me about their papers!!!

[onenote]

95. Thy should rule based on the record and arguments placed before them.

Judges don't engage in independent investigations. They are reviewing lower court decisions based on the record created and the legal arguments presented to them.

I guarantee that none of the other Justices have read the entire 2700 pages of the ACA. Indeed, Sotomayor's argument essentially is that if the mandate is struck down its not the role of the court to go through the Act and decide what survives -- that should be up to Congress. In other words, Sotomayor and Scalia were making basically the same point.

[Jim Lane]

105. In an adversary system, judges rely heavily on what the lawyers tell them.

The idea is that each side will present the facts, legal precedents, etc. that support its position. The judges will have the benefit of these presentations instead of doing independent investigation.

Your example is different because teachers grading papers don't commonly use the adversary system. You shouldn't grade in reliance on what your students tell you unless someone is engaged on the other side, someone knowledgeable and experienced in the field, who reads the same papers and is assigned to argue for a lower grade.

Incidentally, the ACA argument illustrates the point. Because the case is so complex, there are more than two possible resolutions. Neither the plaintiffs nor the Department of Justice favor the resolution reached in the lower court. Therefore, the Supreme Court appointed a third set of lawyers to argue for that position. That's an unusual step, but appropriate here, because it ensures that the Court will hear all the relevant arguments.

[MD20]

87. Since SCOTUS doesn't read "the whole thang...

perhaps the progressives can conspire to have select resignations ( Thomas /Scalia) slipped in among the pages of an otherwise innocuos bill. Once it is signed, we notify Obama to go over wth an armed escort and demand they leave the building.

[adigal]

93. Right??? I was stunned to hear that.

That is his job.

[onenote]

96. You may have been stunned

but that merely reflects your lack of familiarity with how courts operate.

It is not the "job" of the Justices to read every line of a statute whose constitutionality is before them. Their job is to review the record and legal briefs presented to them. And, here's a clue -- most justices (and appellate court judges) don't even read all of the briefs. Rather they often rely on their clerks to prepare summaries of the briefs -- the justices/judges may then choose to read some briefs all the way through.

I guarantee that none of the Justices read the ACA "all the way through". Indeed, Sotamayor's point was that it should be left to Congress to decide whether other provisions of the ACA need to be revisited if the mandate is struck down. I'm certain that she doesn't think it is necessary for her to read the whole statute.

A lot of uninformed outrage here. Take it from a former clerk for a liberal judge -- Scalia's comments would be backed up not only by every other member of the SCOTUS, but also by every other sitting member of the federal judiciary.

[adigal]

102. If they are going to get rid of the whole thing

they should know, exactly, what they are getting rid of. They are trying to play both sides of the fence - getting rid of a law when they don't even know what is in it.

[onenote]

103. They don't need to read the whole thing. They need to read the legal arguments.

The question is whether a case can be made that the entire thing should fall whether or not the individual pieces are unconstitutional. If the lawyers have made that case without discussing every individual provision, then they win. If they fail to make that case without discussing every individual provision, they lose. The Justices don't need to independently review every position, they have to determine whether the lawyers have made the case for their respective positions. Rather, the issue is whether a justice is convinced by the legal arguments that its not necessary to review the entire law (a position apparently held, for opposite reasons, by Sotamayor and Scalia, the former believing that the fate of the rest of the law should be left to Congress while Scalia believes the case has been made for striking it down).

[Javaman]

98. Reading is hard. nt

[golfguru]

113. You can hear it from a CD, do not need to read.

I frequently borrow books from my library on CD. I can close my eyes and just listen.

[Javaman]

116. being responcible is difficult. nt

[just1voice]

107. Glass-Stegall was 37 pages long, protected the public for 70 years

Scalia's a pigfck liar who represents criminal corporations so nobody cares what he says, he'll support anything that's bad for the American people regardless of its length.

Look at all the current BS "Acts" like Dodd-Frank, they are written by lobbyists for criminal corporations. A bill or Act that is 2700 pages long is nothing but a handbook for crime, that's the real point.

[FlyByNight]

108. Well then, Tony, retire now...

...if you don't want to do your fucking job.

Pig.

[onenote]

110. Both sides agreed that the court didn't have to read the entire law to decide the case.

In fact, the first Justice to make the point that he had not read every word was Justice Breyer, not Scalia. The proponents of striking down the entire law were not arguing that every provision was unconstitutional, but rather that the individual mandate was the "heart" of the law and that without it, and a couple of other provisions that even the government conceded were not severable from that provision, the rest of the law should be struck down so Congress could operate on a "clean slate." The flip side argument was that even if the mandate was unconstitutional and a couple of other provisions so intertwined with the mandate that they could not stand without the mandate, the court didn't need to consider each other provision because the presumption was that they could be severed and allowed to stand.

As Justice Breyer pointed out, if the choice wasn't either strike it all down or strike down only the few parts that both sides conceded need to be struck down, the option -- which neither side was advocating -- would be for the court to "spend a year reading all this" and having the parties argue the severability issue with respect to each provision.

While its fun to make mock of Scalia on this, the point is that neither side expected or had suggested that it was necessary or even appropriate for the court to read every provision of the law. Folks that think the court should have simply have no understanding of the legal issue being considered.

[golfguru]

112. We need a NEW Amendment to US consitution

which would require every congress critter to read every bill they vote on.
AHCA was passed without most not reading it. Nancy Pelosi said you have to pass it to find out what is in it. That is ludicrous. No wonder it is a big mess now.

[onenote]

114. And exactly how would you enforce this Constitutional amendment?

[golfguru]

117. Same way they made sure I read my assignments in college

A QUIZ! If they flunk, can't vote on the bill.

[Redford]

118. You are assuming they can all read....

I'm not sure they all can.

[McCamy Taylor]

119. Yes, I do expect them to read it. How can they strike it down if they do not read it?

Seriously, if they strike the whole law down because they do not like two parts, they are breaking the law and should be impeached just as soon as the Dems get control of the House this fall. Impeach them on the grounds of laziness--and Thomas on the grounds of conflict of interest.

[onenote]

122. Why do people insist on displaying their ignorance of the legal system?

Last edited Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

While I don't think the Court should strike down the entire Act on the grounds that various other provisions are not severable, that is a case by case decision that often is made and its not "illegal" or an "impeachable" offense for judges to disagree. All of the justices appeared to agree that the standard for deciding severability is not crystal clear

[kiranon]

127. Justice Scalia doesn't need to read it, when he has right wing talking points

to take the place of any originality on his part. What an inglorious ending for what could have been an illustrious career on the Court. He will go down in history as just another political hack with a religious bent that perverted his once great intelligence. Some Justices grow older and wiser and some don't grow at all.

[Art_from_Ark]

140. Scalia was never destined to have an "illustrious career"

He was appointed precisely because he was a right wing nut who could be counted on to always, or nearly always, vote with the right wing.

[Herlong]

130. Yes. I really want you to do you job.

Being a blowhard bully is better if you don't know shit. Just ask Bill O'really.

[onenote]

131. It would help your position if you understood what the Justices job was.

None of the Justices have read the entire law. That much was clear from the oral argument, the transcript of which I'm guessing you haven't read. Justice Breyer even said (before Scalia made his comments) that he "promised" he hadn't read every word. And that's exactly right, because the one thing that the two sides in the argument on "severability" agreed on was that there was no need for the Court to review each provision separately to see if should fall or stand assuming the individual mandate was struck down.

Get it?

[Herlong]

138. Can't read?

[yurbud]

147. He just proved why Thomas is smart to keep his mouth shut:

better to be quiet and thought an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

148. He'd rather go duck hunting with Cheney - quack quack

[Beacool]

149. So why should he be any different from the members of Congress?

Congress rushed to vote on something that none of them had read in its entirety. The largest piece of legislation since the 60s was rushed through without being read.

Unbelievable........

[Hotler]

151. Lazy fucker! n/t

[Johnson20]

152. Well very few in Congress

probably read the whole thing before they voted on it and I doubt if they have read it to date. It didn't upset any one much at the time and probably not now. Hypocrisy abounds here as usual.