View Full Version : WHEN the ACA is ruled 'unconstitutional', remember Scalia didn't bother to read it

06-25-2012, 04:39 AM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/101736627)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:11 AM

TrollBuster9090 (792 posts)

WHEN the ACA is ruled 'unconstitutional', just remember Scalia didn't ever bother reading it.

That might be lost in the noise tomorrow, but don't let it be forgotten. Antonin Scalia, the biggest clown ever to sit on the Supreme Court,...the guy who went duck hunting with Dick Cheney WHILE he was adjudicating his case, thus destroying any concept of justice appearing to be blind...that Antonin Scalia...actually whined "do you really expect us to READ this?" during the ACA arguments.

Not that Scalia is any worse than the four other conservative activists on the Supreme Court. He's just too much of a asshat to worry about trying to HIDE his biases and contempt for democracy and justice. The truth is, he didn't read it, had no intention of reading it, and actually PROVED he didn't read it through his comments about sections of the law that were removed (ie-the 'cornhusker kickback'). He was just intending to do what he normally does. Figure out what would most benefit the Republican Party, and then blow the appropriate ruling out of his ass, as always. But here's the kicker....with any other court, if you have proof that the Judge didn't do his job, you can APPEAL the ruling. And the kicker is that there is nobody to appeal a Supreme Court Ruling TO, which is probably the reason Scalia doesn't bother to hide his flagrant biases and legal transgressions.

Bottom line: if this law is overturned, remind everybody that some of the judges ruled on it without even bothering to read it. And that the obvious political partisanship behind this ruling, the Citizens United Ruling, and a dozen other rulings prove that the Supreme Court is nothing more than a political body which, unlike other political bodies, does not have to face the electorate. It should either be abolished, made more accountable (by ELECTING Justices), or at the very least...TERM LIMITS should be placed on their appointments. LOL That's not going to fly. Democrats didn't think it was important to read it BEFORE voting on it. In fact Pelosi said that they would have to PASS it in order to know what was in it. The justices don't need to read it to decide if it is constitutional to mandate that everyone buy a product they may not want.

It's hard to believe liberals really don't see how stupid (not to mention hypocritical) they sound when they spout off these kinds of things, but I guess they don't.

PoliticAverse (3,464 posts)

1. Which of the 9 justices do think read the entire ACA ? n/t
Good question. I bet the liberal judges didn't either...but of course libs will think that those that decided the "right way" shouldn't have had to read it.

06-25-2012, 08:30 AM
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:11 AM

TrollBuster9090 (792 posts)

WHEN the ACA is ruled 'unconstitutional', just remember Scalia didn't ever bother reading it.

"We have to pass it before we can know what's in it" ~ Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Yeah about that trollbuster...:rolleyes:

06-25-2012, 09:03 AM
The justices (all of them) have clerks to read things and brief them. The last several days, the DUmmies have been trying to brace themselves because the law probably won't pass muster with the court and they know it.

06-25-2012, 12:34 PM
Wow, DU. That's not hypocritical or anything, is it?