Scalia Says Court Can’t Be Bothered To Read Obamacare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Don't they understand that you have to overturn the law in order to see what's in it? :biggrin-new:

---

:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JB

Sometimes I look around and honestly believe I am living in some kind of Bizzaro Superman world when I read the stuff that gets posted there. Good post Carol.

Scalia should really break balls and subpoena Pelosi to have the law read before the court. Then when she's done say "good now we both know what's in it".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fettpett

LMAO, that would be awesome....hell demand that every single network bring cameras in and broadcast it live on TV so EVERYONE would know what the hell is in this POS

---

What would be priceless is if they made the Wicked Witch read it and explain it after each subsection. That would be hysterical since the tiny brained idiot wouldn;t have a clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmPat

What would be priceless is if they made the Wicked Witch read it and explain it after each subsection. That would be hysterical since the tiny brained idiot wouldn;t have a clue.

---

Do you know how many gin and tonics I would need to get through that?:very_drunk:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Do you know how many gin and tonics I would need to get through that?:very_drunk:

---

Mmm... might be fun to find out.

http://i.imgur.com/DsfIG.gif

Quote:

---

But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Nancy Pelosi

---

:rolleyes:

How can anyone of those bags of douche complain after Nancy Pisslosi said the exact same thing!!!!!!!!!!!! :mg:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey

How can anyone of those bags of douche complain after Nancy Pisslosi said the exact same thing!!!!!!!!!!!! :mg:

---

Because they hold the rest of the world to impossibly high standards while holding themselves to none.

I always thought that the individual justices' clerks and interns did the actual reading of the cases and summarized them by writing briefs for the justices to read.

That's kind of how the lawyers I know have explained it to me, but they are all mostly juvie court lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noonwitch

I always thought that the individual justices' clerks and interns did the actual reading of the cases and summarized them by writing briefs for the justices to read.

That's kind of how the lawyers I know have explained it to me, but they are all mostly juvie court lawyers.

---

Given the fact that there were several sections of the 2,700 pages that were blank when the bill was signed and marked to be filled in later...I doubt anyone knows what is actually in the pages that do have any writing on them.

Congress didn't, why should the Supremes? In less flippant terms, though, the Justices are not obliged to slog through it, only the parts that are actually relevant to the issue in front of them, and under our adversarial litigation system, it is the job of the parties and any allowed amicus curiae to brief the legal issues so that detailed reading of the entire waste of trees by the Justices is not required.