Scalia: Cheap Republican Hack

[cthulu2016]

A disgrace to every notion of judicial impartiality

In Final Arguments, Scalia Shows More Anti-'Obamacare' Colors

...

In the morning session -- in which the court weighed how much of the law should stand if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional -- Scalia cited the horsetrading required to pass the bill -- including the politically embarrassing, and failed, Cornhusker Kickback. He also admitted that he'd like to see the whole law fall if the mandate is ruled out of bounds.

In the afternoon, he took pains to remind the court of the unpopularity of the individual mandate.

The exchange occurred when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. rejected a hypothetical that relied on the notion of Congress passing a massive new tax. This, he argued, would have to overcome massive political constraints.

At that point Scalia chimed in: He would've thought the individual mandate would also be too much of a political liability to ever pass Congress.

...

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/in-final-arguments-scalia-shows-more-anti-obamacare?ref=fpblg

[truebrit71]

1. Water = Wet

No real surprise here....(unfortunately)...

[spanone]

2. anthony should know that popular opinion has no place in the supreme court ...'should'

[cthulu2016]

3. And O'Connor was forever citing polls. Just pathetic.

[KansDem]

4. Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case

November 14, 2011
By James Oliphant

The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.

The occasion was last Thursday, when all nine justices met for a conference to pore over the petitions for review. One of the cases at issue was a suit brought by 26 states challenging the sweeping healthcare overhaul passed by Congress last year, a law that has been a rallying cry for conservative activists nationwide.

The justices agreed to hear the suit; indeed, a landmark 5 1/2-hour argument is expected in March, and the outcome is likely to further roil the 2012 presidential race, which will be in full swing by the time the court’s decision is released.

The lawyer who will stand before the court and argue that the law should be thrown out is likely to be Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration.

Clement’s law firm, Bancroft PLLC, was one of almost two dozen firms that helped sponsor the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, a longstanding group dedicated to advocating conservative legal principles. Another firm that sponsored the dinner, Jones Day, represents one of the trade associations that challenged the law, the National Federation of Independent Business.

Another sponsor was pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc, which has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. The dinner was held at a Washington hotel hours after the court's conference over the case. In attendance was, among others, Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s top Republican and an avowed opponent of the healthcare law.

The featured guests at the dinner? Scalia and Thomas.

--more--
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/14/news/la-pn-scalia-thomas-20111114

[Mr.Turnip]

6. Wait a second... THOMAS IS CAPABLE OF SPEECH?

[mike_c]

5. this is the argument that gives the lie to any semblence of redeeming qualities in the ACA....

In the end, it's all about the mandate. The bill's supporters acknowledge that without the mandate, either insurance will remain prohibitively expensive for most, or insurance company profits will decline. Why do liberals even care about greedy insurance execs in need of wealth care reform? Why not simply tell them to provide their service because it's the right thing to do, and if they can't see their way to do that on minimal or no personal profit, then government should do the job instead.

Even the ACA's stanchest supporters won't talk about keeping the good things in the bill-- the medical loss ratio, children's insurance, no pre-existing conditions, etc-- without continuing to enrich the money managers who have gotten their greedy claws into the human illness, injury, and suffering business.

[cthulu2016]

7. ...

[hughee99]

8. I may have misunderstood an earlier thread,

but I believe that Obama's own people have asked that if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the whole law be thrown out.