Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Scalia Says Court Can’t Be Bothered To Read Obamacare: ‘You Really Want Us To Go Through These 2,700 [View all]joshcryer
(62,287 posts)81. Nice channel that video is posted on.
A right winger to the core.
Right wing smears.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
164 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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
We do now know Scalia won't take responsibility to read the case...s does his Jr.; Clarence Thomas.
FarPoint
Mar 2012
#45
The most important case in recent history?? He could at least skim through it.
nanabugg
Mar 2012
#86
I read legislation for a living and there is no way you read 90 percent of the ACA
onenote
Mar 2012
#132
If the point was that you made up a totally unbelievable load about reading the ACA in an hour
onenote
Mar 2012
#139
You might be able to look at that many pages in a few hours, but comprehend it? Not a chance
onenote
Apr 2012
#156
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
The reason I ask is that Hill staffers I know who had to review it when it was under consideration
onenote
Mar 2012
#145
the pdf referred to here has about 5 words/line and would take little time to read a page
wordpix
Apr 2012
#154
IMO, it's kind of absurd that a piece of legislation is 2700 pages to begin with.
OneTenthofOnePercent
Mar 2012
#7
Well If You Are Going To Decide The Fate Of Healthcare For 300+ Million Americans......
global1
Mar 2012
#8
He's like every other Republican in this country ... waits for Fox news to tell him what it says.
JoePhilly
Mar 2012
#14
I agree with you about the Justices reading it. Some of the lawyers might have read it all.
Jim Lane
Mar 2012
#79
"Why waste all that time reading when I've already made up my mind how I will vote?"
spooky3
Mar 2012
#35
No, we pay you for your "Good looks, charm and personality" you dumb ass. Of course we want you
teddy51
Mar 2012
#40
At least the Democrats in the Senate tried to block his nomination (yes, that's BITTER sarcasm)
abq e streeter
Mar 2012
#57
for saying reading the law would be cruel and unusual punishment which is what he said. Dont
robinlynne
Mar 2012
#123
That is not the point. Scalia made a joke calling it cruel and unusual punishment. Do you think
robinlynne
Mar 2012
#125
I didnt know Breyer said that. Yes I have watched many many hours of the Supreme Court.
robinlynne
Mar 2012
#128
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
fat tony has plenty of time to go to Repug fundraisers, though, and stuff his face
wordpix
Apr 2012
#155
They don't need to read the whole thing. They need to read the legal arguments.
onenote
Mar 2012
#103
Both sides agreed that the court didn't have to read the entire law to decide the case.
onenote
Mar 2012
#110
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