Liberty Requires Accepting Responsibility

[Guest]

As one of the nine US Supreme Court judges, Antonin Scalia is responsible for making an important decision by June. He's known about it for a while. Because he is consistently the justice who is most concerned about 'government intervention' and impinging on personal liberty, it is assumed he has already made up his mind to vote with the other justices who will find parts or all of the recent health care law unconstitutional.

It is Justice Scalia's right and his responsibility to vote according to his convictions, based on his thorough knowledge of the Constitution, the legal precedents set in previous court decisions, and the content of the recent law. But, during hearings about the law's provisions, Justice Scalia has stated: "What happened to the Eighth Amendment?" (the ban on cruel and unusual punishment), "You really expect us to go through 2,700 pages?"

I think it is trivial by comparison for a congressman to have voted for or against the law without having read it thoroughly. But I find it completely irresponsible, in fact shameful, for a Justice on a Court which is notoriously split 5-4, to complain about having to be fully informed before making one of the most momentous decisions in recent American history.

[Guest]

See my post with a similar observation.
:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

[Guest]

As one of the nine US Supreme Court judges, Antonin Scalia is responsible for making an important decision by June. He's known about it for a while. Because he is consistently the justice who is most concerned about 'government intervention' and impinging on personal liberty, it is assumed he has already made up his mind to vote with the other justices who will find parts or all of the recent health care law unconstitutional.

It is Justice Scalia's right and his responsibility to vote according to his convictions, based on his thorough knowledge of the Constitution, the legal precedents set in previous court decisions, and the content of the recent law. But, during hearings about the law's provisions, Justice Scalia has stated: "What happened to the Eighth Amendment?" (the ban on cruel and unusual punishment), "You really expect us to go through 2,700 pages?"

I think it is trivial by comparison for a congressman to have voted for or against the law without having read it thoroughly. But I find it completely irresponsible, in fact shameful, for a Justice on a Court which is notoriously split 5-4, to complain about having to be fully informed before making one of the most momentous decisions in recent American history.

It is really clever the way you weave in and out of your aforementioned remarks. If you really knew anything about Scalia you would know first of all he has a great sense of humor. You would also know that he has probably a digested all 2,700 pages of a law before the supreme Court convened on Monday, a law by the way that Congress passed and never read. You would also show as much concern about a balanced decision from the remaining eight justices.

[Guest]

and Obama has 2 months to work his back room magic the the 9 judges!!!!

Let's just watch how far they all wander from their initial first day observations of unconstitutional in nature.

Any bets?

btk

[Guest]

It is really clever the way you weave in and out of your aforementioned remarks. If you really knew anything about Scalia you would know first of all he has a great sense of humor. You would also know that he has probably a digested all 2,700 pages of a law before the supreme Court convened on Monday, a law by the way that Congress passed and never read. You would also show as much concern about a balanced decision from the remaining eight justices.


could not agree with you more!

[Guest]

It is really clever the way you weave in and out of your aforementioned remarks. If you really knew anything about Scalia you would know first of all he has a great sense of humor. You would also know that he has probably a digested all 2,700 pages of a law before the supreme Court convened on Monday, a law by the way that Congress passed and never read. You would also show as much concern about a balanced decision from the remaining eight justices.

Your insult notwithstanding, Scalia's record is clear. If you were forthcoming, you would agree he is one of the most predictably conservative justices in history. I take him at his word that he hasn't "digested all 2,700 pages" because we all know he has long ago made up his mind. Would you care to place a wager on how Scalia will vote in this case? Go ahead, make your proposal. His comment is the betrayal of a closed mind. He is really saying he doesn't have to read the law. And that, my friend, is not humor. It's arrogance and the height of irresponsible conduct.

[Guest]

Your insult notwithstanding, Scalia's record is clear. If you were forthcoming, you would agree he is one of the most predictably conservative justices in history. I take him at his word that he hasn't "digested all 2,700 pages" because we all know he has long ago made up his mind. Would you care to place a wager on how Scalia will vote in this case? Go ahead, make your proposal. His comment is the betrayal of a closed mind. He is really saying he doesn't have to read the law. And that, my friend, is not humor. It's arrogance and the height of irresponsible conduct.

I don't think you have to read the entire law to know the unconstitutionality of it. Once you knock out the mandate the law falls like a house of cards according to most observers.

The SCOTUS only rules on it legality, not it's content.

[Guest]

It sounded to me like some of the left-leaning judges were looking for an excuse to keep it. I mean, worrying about the ramifications? Trying to deduce Congress' intent?

If it's not legal, 'blackmail' isn't going to make it any MORE legal!