Latest Breaking News

onenote

(46,177 posts)

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

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 11:38 AM

Mar 2012

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).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

164 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Scalia Says Court Can�t Be Bothered To Read Obamacare: �You Really Want Us To Go Through These 2,700 [View all] kpete Mar 2012 OP

Then, Justice Scalia, why did you take the case? Do you want to rule in ignorance? HubertHeaver Mar 2012 #1

Nobody has ever read read Obamacare. CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #15

It's called the Affordable Care Act. truthisfreedom Mar 2012 #44

We do now know Scalia won't take responsibility to read the case...s does his Jr.; Clarence Thomas. FarPoint Mar 2012 #45

Scalia should - he's a "textualist" (nothing else to read) Land Shark Mar 2012 #55

OMG... FarPoint Mar 2012 #69

The most important case in recent history?? He could at least skim through it. nanabugg Mar 2012 #86

Have you looked at the bill? Didn't think so. harun Mar 2012 #97

You must be a speed reader. CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #101

Look at the .pdf. You'll see what I mean. harun Mar 2012 #129

I read legislation for a living and there is no way you read 90 percent of the ACA onenote Mar 2012 #132

Your missing the point, but I give up. harun Mar 2012 #135

NGU Herlong Mar 2012 #137

If the point was that you made up a totally unbelievable load about reading the ACA in an hour onenote Mar 2012 #139

Kagan worked on it. CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #143

She also told him that's burrowowl Apr 2012 #159

This message was self-deleted by its author Herlong Mar 2012 #136

less than 2100 pgs, with 5 words/line each page, big whoop wordpix Apr 2012 #153

You might be able to look at that many pages in a few hours, but comprehend it? Not a chance onenote Apr 2012 #156

+1, exactly and no one asked them to go through the whole thing. He is just harun Apr 2012 #163

Not grandstanding. Making a point. The same as Breyer, who asked pretty much the same thing onenote Apr 2012 #164

I read it. It's important legislation, and it is your responsibility to be informed Politicub Mar 2012 #141

Do you mind my asking how long it took to read it? onenote Mar 2012 #142

Don't remember. It's been a while Politicub Mar 2012 #144

The reason I ask is that Hill staffers I know who had to review it when it was under consideration onenote Mar 2012 #145

Wonky is how I roll Politicub Mar 2012 #146

the pdf referred to here has about 5 words/line and would take little time to read a page wordpix Apr 2012 #154

See post #156 onenote Apr 2012 #157

OK, say it takes 10 hr to read and understand fully, or 20 hr wordpix Apr 2012 #160

Probably more like 10 to 20 days. onenote Apr 2012 #161

Whaaaaaat?! abelenkpe Mar 2012 #2

He could divide up the work with his law clerks. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #3

You granted certiorari and you didn't have to. The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2012 #4

If the Esteemed Justice can't be bothered to read the whole thing anti-alec Mar 2012 #5

Must be the job doesn't pay enough. yankeepants Mar 2012 #6

IMO, it's kind of absurd that a piece of legislation is 2700 pages to begin with. OneTenthofOnePercent Mar 2012 #7

Look - Our Healthcare System Is Really Complicated..... global1 Mar 2012 #47

No, I did not read this... MattSh Mar 2012 #88

only problem is SuisseBleu Apr 2012 #162

Well If You Are Going To Decide The Fate Of Healthcare For 300+ Million Americans...... global1 Mar 2012 #8

Why? Beacool Mar 2012 #150

That's your job, you fat turdling. Ikonoklast Mar 2012 #9

Did you hear that? Hawkowl Mar 2012 #10

You should have read the bill before you heard the case! Dont call me Shirley Mar 2012 #11

Uh, yes they do. It's part of that whole checks and balances thing. kestrel91316 Mar 2012 #39

Really? Then what is their role? Ruby the Liberal Mar 2012 #46

that's the function of the SC. KG Mar 2012 #60

Uh, that is totally a function of the SC. ElboRuum Mar 2012 #63

Wait, wut? Codeine Mar 2012 #66

Marbury v. Madison wpelb Mar 2012 #67

Just because the Supremes took it upon themselves to be the final arbiters fasttense Mar 2012 #90

those were really ignorant decisions newspeak Mar 2012 #100

If the SC doesn't decide if a law is constitutional who does? ThomThom Mar 2012 #70

It's NOT in the Constitution. fasttense Mar 2012 #89

you have said it so well....I wish we could make that would work ThomThom Mar 2012 #91

AMEN! MD20 Mar 2012 #92

Scalia just proved himself to be a pure wingnut... Brooklyn Dame Mar 2012 #12

How long ago did they know that this hearing was coming up? julian09 Mar 2012 #13

He's like every other Republican in this country ... waits for Fox news to tell him what it says. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #14

Once again, a conservative relies on 'truthiness' LastLiberal in PalmSprings Mar 2012 #16

Scalia on the constitution or any legal document: tl;dr SWTORFanatic Mar 2012 #17

What does "tl;dr" mean? nt tblue37 Mar 2012 #72

too long; didn't read n/t Occulus Mar 2012 #74

Thanks! nt tblue37 Mar 2012 #76

Our Fuckin "Supreme Court" is nothing but a Fuckin JOKE Justice wanted Mar 2012 #18

I think this is in reference to the severability issue gratuitous Mar 2012 #19

I think so too. savalez Mar 2012 #37

I agree with you (nt) Tumbulu Mar 2012 #49

John Conyers, Steny Hoyer, and Max Baucus agree with him Neue Regel Mar 2012 #20

Then why did you take the case? Dawson Leery Mar 2012 #21

I suspect they don't have to read it because it was already decided.... wandy Mar 2012 #22

They Strike it so they don"t have to read it. CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #25

What a lazy ass! KansDem Mar 2012 #23

Ok Scalia is a bit of a dick but did any of our esteemed legislators Leontius Mar 2012 #24

No they didn't n/t bbinacan Mar 2012 #29

LAZY AND LIVING OFF THE GOVERNMENT. slampoet Mar 2012 #26

That's your job you nitwit Swede Atlanta Mar 2012 #27

No single person has read the entire health care bill. former9thward Mar 2012 #28

Excellent point! n/t bbinacan Mar 2012 #32

Scalia may have a better memory than many DUers One_Life_To_Give Mar 2012 #38

Hmmmm . . . Jack Rabbit Mar 2012 #68

I agree with you about the Justices reading it. Some of the lawyers might have read it all. Jim Lane Mar 2012 #79

Nice channel that video is posted on. joshcryer Mar 2012 #81

So they made up her speech? former9thward Mar 2012 #84

She's not saying what the right wingers and you are saying she's saying. joshcryer Mar 2012 #85

What is she sayings? former9thward Mar 2012 #99

The right wing is trying to imply that she doesn't know what's in it. joshcryer Mar 2012 #121

Context SATIRical Mar 2012 #115

She is saying that the American people don't know what's in it. joshcryer Mar 2012 #120

So you think the American people know what is in those 2700 pages? former9thward Mar 2012 #134

Nobody else has read this bill bbinacan Mar 2012 #30

Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #31

According to Scalia, Jamaal510 Mar 2012 #33

I believe comment is related to asking SCOTUS to do the job of Congress. savalez Mar 2012 #34

"Why waste all that time reading when I've already made up my mind how I will vote?" spooky3 Mar 2012 #35

2000 of those 2700 pages are probably "pork." MD20 Mar 2012 #36

I agree with your point BB_Troll Mar 2012 #52

25 lines per page, less than 60 characters per line FarCenter Mar 2012 #77

No, we pay you for your "Good looks, charm and personality" you dumb ass. Of course we want you teddy51 Mar 2012 #40

They say it is double-and-triple-spaced, about the size of a secondwind Mar 2012 #41

Why should SCOTUS be any different than Congress? SomethingFishy Mar 2012 #42

Fat Tony's sulphurdunn Mar 2012 #43

hate to break this to you justice but.... PatrynXX Mar 2012 #48

Yes, it's your job, asshole! muntrv Mar 2012 #50

Then maybe Scalia agrees that H.R.676 Medicare for ALL should have been passed csziggy Mar 2012 #51

CBO nightmare BB_Troll Mar 2012 #53

That bill never made it out of committee so the CBO never scored it csziggy Mar 2012 #65

He's the same fat bastard that said people need more exercise, not healthcare. magic59 Mar 2012 #54

I'm thinking millions of children are going to laugh all at once PatrynXX Mar 2012 #56

At least the Democrats in the Senate tried to block his nomination (yes, that's BITTER sarcasm) abq e streeter Mar 2012 #57

Isn't that their job?? n/t OhioChick Mar 2012 #58

That's ok with me. RECUSE him. robinlynne Mar 2012 #59

For admitting he didn't read the entire law? onenote Mar 2012 #111

for saying reading the law would be cruel and unusual punishment which is what he said. Dont robinlynne Mar 2012 #123

You really shouldn't opine on things you don't understand onenote Mar 2012 #124

That is not the point. Scalia made a joke calling it cruel and unusual punishment. Do you think robinlynne Mar 2012 #125

And Breyer jokingly said that he "promised" that he hadn't read every word. onenote Mar 2012 #126

I didnt know Breyer said that. Yes I have watched many many hours of the Supreme Court. robinlynne Mar 2012 #128

Yes tony I expect you to read it or to read the summations by your clerks. Botany Mar 2012 #61

Yeah, damn right I expect it. That's what they are paid to do. Cass Mar 2012 #62

Don't the clerks do most of the work? ThomThom Mar 2012 #64

On what, exactly, will Scalia be basing his ruling, if not on the law? Orrex Mar 2012 #71

I guess this will be 'decision by guess,' and F the majority of Americas, who gives a RKP5637 Mar 2012 #73

So the court is going to decide on something they refuse to completely understand? liberal N proud Mar 2012 #75

I'm no Scalia fan but these attacks on him are ridiculous. Jim Lane Mar 2012 #78

if you can read.... unkachuck Mar 2012 #80

It took me a few weeks. The Justices don't have that luxury. Jim Lane Mar 2012 #82

fat tony has plenty of time to go to Repug fundraisers, though, and stuff his face wordpix Apr 2012 #155

'I don't buy that he "doesn't have that luxury."' unkachuck Apr 2012 #158

Just curious! MD20 Mar 2012 #83

Sorry, what you want is simply not possible. Jim Lane Mar 2012 #104

So they should rule based on what lawyers tell them?? adigal Mar 2012 #94

Thy should rule based on the record and arguments placed before them. onenote Mar 2012 #95

In an adversary system, judges rely heavily on what the lawyers tell them. Jim Lane Mar 2012 #105

Since SCOTUS doesn't read "the whole thang... MD20 Mar 2012 #87

Right??? I was stunned to hear that. adigal Mar 2012 #93

You may have been stunned onenote Mar 2012 #96

If they are going to get rid of the whole thing adigal Mar 2012 #102

They don't need to read the whole thing. They need to read the legal arguments. onenote Mar 2012 #103

This message was self-deleted by its author onenote Mar 2012 #109

Reading is hard. nt Javaman Mar 2012 #98

You can hear it from a CD, do not need to read. golfguru Mar 2012 #113

being responcible is difficult. nt Javaman Mar 2012 #116

This message was self-deleted by its author polichick Mar 2012 #106

Glass-Stegall was 37 pages long, protected the public for 70 years just1voice Mar 2012 #107

Well then, Tony, retire now... FlyByNight Mar 2012 #108

Both sides agreed that the court didn't have to read the entire law to decide the case. onenote Mar 2012 #110

We need a NEW Amendment to US consitution golfguru Mar 2012 #112

And exactly how would you enforce this Constitutional amendment? onenote Mar 2012 #114

Same way they made sure I read my assignments in college golfguru Mar 2012 #117

You are assuming they can all read.... Redford Mar 2012 #118

Yes, I do expect them to read it. How can they strike it down if they do not read it? McCamy Taylor Mar 2012 #119

Why do people insist on displaying their ignorance of the legal system? onenote Mar 2012 #122

Justice Scalia doesn't need to read it, when he has right wing talking points kiranon Mar 2012 #127

Scalia was never destined to have an "illustrious career" Art_from_Ark Mar 2012 #140

Yes. I really want you to do you job. Herlong Mar 2012 #130

It would help your position if you understood what the Justices job was. onenote Mar 2012 #131

This message was self-deleted by its author Herlong Mar 2012 #133

Can't read? Herlong Mar 2012 #138

He just proved why Thomas is smart to keep his mouth shut: yurbud Mar 2012 #147

He'd rather go duck hunting with Cheney - quack quack aint_no_life_nowhere Mar 2012 #148

So why should he be any different from the members of Congress? Beacool Mar 2012 #149

Lazy fucker! n/t Hotler Apr 2012 #151

Well very few in Congress Johnson20 Apr 2012 #152