The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 30, 2012, 03:56:28 PM

Title: I'm just looking for a little consistency
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 30, 2012, 03:56:28 PM
Quote
kpete (33,358 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

Scalia Says Court Can’t Be Bothered To Read Obamacare: ‘You Really Want Us To Go Through These 2,700

Source: Think Progress
 
<blah-blah-blah>

Quote
HubertHeaver (520 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

1. Then, Justice Scalia, why did you take the case? Do you want to rule in ignorance?

Quote
FarPoint (989 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

45. We do now know Scalia won't take responsibility to read the case...s does his Jr.; Clarence Thomas.

He's an arrogant, impotent old man....what a waste of an honorable chair. Makes a mockery of the position. 

Quote
The Velveteen Ocelot (30,663 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

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 ****.

Quote
anti-alec (175 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

5. If the Esteemed Justice can't be bothered to read the whole thing

Then the esteemed Justice can tender his resignation to Barack H. Obama as soon as possible.

And take your talking dummy with you - that's Justice Clarence "Pervert" Thomas. He doesn't work.

And on it goes.

Now, I know what you're thinking.

"Sarge, the dems didn't read it either!" and then you recite Nancy Pelosi's now infamous line (No, not the "Bring me another gin and tonic, Louisa" the other line).

But this is about SCOTUS not reading the law. If you don't read it, you're a lazy fat **** who should resign.

WELL OK THEN!

Quote
(CNSNews.com) - In oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Justice Stephen Breyer “promised” he had not read the entirety of the 2,700-page health-care legislation the court was examining.

He also suggested it would be unreasonable for the lawyers arguing over the constitutionality of the law to expect the justices to “spend a year reading all this” to determine which parts of it should be allowed to stand if the court decides to strike down as unconstitutional the law’s mandate that individuals must buy health insurance.

...

“What do you suggest we do?” said Breyer. “I mean, should we appoint a special master with an instruction? Should we go back to the district court? You haven't argued most of these. As I hear you now, you're pretty close to the SG [the Obama administration’s solicitor general]. I mean, you'd like it all struck down, but we are supposed to apply the objective test. I don't know if you differ very much.

“So what do you propose that we do other than spend a year reading all this and have you argument all this?” said Breyer.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-breyer-obamacare-i-haven-t-read-every-word-i-promise

When will these idiots learn that every time they feign moral outrage something on their side ends up biting them in the ass?
Title: Re: I'm just looking for a little consistency
Post by: JohnnyReb on March 30, 2012, 04:04:15 PM
When will these idiots learn that every time they feign moral outrage something on their side ends up biting them in the ass?

Their asses already looked worse than the pimple assed fat girls in cheap porno magazines.
Title: Re: I'm just looking for a little consistency
Post by: oldcrow on March 30, 2012, 04:15:27 PM
Hey DUmmies,

“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” - Nancy Pelosi

Now, why should Scalia  be expected to read the entire bill? 
Title: Re: I'm just looking for a little consistency
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 30, 2012, 04:16:28 PM
Hey DUmmies,

“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” - Nancy Pelosi

You didn't read the OP, did you?
Title: Re: I'm just looking for a little consistency
Post by: Airwolf on March 30, 2012, 04:27:32 PM
Their asses already looked worse than the pimple assed fat girls in cheap porno magazines.

At least they provide some kind of use to someone unlike Bela Pelosi.
Title: Re: I'm just looking for a little consistency
Post by: Freeper on March 30, 2012, 04:31:45 PM
If no one needed to read it to pass it, then no one needs to read it to declare it unconstitutional.

Title: Re: I'm just looking for a little consistency
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 30, 2012, 04:32:58 PM
If no one needed to read it to pass it, then no one needs to read it to declare it unconstitutional.

Yes, but will they pillory Assoc. Justice Breyer as they did AJ Scalia?
Title: Re: I'm just looking for a little consistency
Post by: Tucker on March 30, 2012, 04:53:25 PM
Quote
He also suggested it would be unreasonable for the lawyers arguing over the constitutionality of the law to expect the justices to “spend a year reading all this” to determine which parts of it should be allowed to stand if the court decides to strike down as unconstitutional the law’s mandate that individuals must buy health insurance.

-Justice Stephen Breyer

This sounds like if they throw out the mandate as unconstitutional, then the legality of the rest of it is moot.

What's the sounds of 500 heads asplodin at the same time?

The entire membership of the DUmp.


Title: Re: I'm just looking for a little consistency
Post by: GOBUCKS on March 30, 2012, 05:14:58 PM
I suspect it's very rare for a congressman on either side of the aisle, or a Supreme Court justice, to read the entire text of any law that's under consideration.

They have staff to prepare briefs or summaries, and make decisions on that basis. I think it's been that way forever.
Title: Re: I'm just looking for a little consistency
Post by: Rebel on March 31, 2012, 01:34:46 PM
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52rrw[/youtube]


And these are the jackasses that PASSED the ****ing bill. It should be thrown out on its ass on that alone.