Latest Breaking News

wordpix

(18,652 posts)

155. fat tony has plenty of time to go to Repug fundraisers, though, and stuff his face

Reply to Jim Lane (Reply #82)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 09:20 PM

Apr 2012

I don't buy that he "doesn't have that luxury."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

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