Reply #4

In the discussion thread: Scalia Says Court Can’t Be Bothered To Read Obamacare: ‘You Really Want Us To Go Through These 2,700 [View all]

Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 05:09 PM

The Velveteen Ocelot (34,721 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

164 replies	Author	Time	Post
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
This post was hidden by jury decision.	NiloTheAngryLatino	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

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.