Justice Scalia to Obama’s Solicitor General: ‘We’re not stupid’ [AUDIO]

The Daily Caller ^

[Sub-Driver]

Justice Scalia to Obama’s Solicitor General: ‘We’re not stupid’ [AUDIO] By Nicholas Ballasy - The Daily Caller 3:39 PM 03/27/2012 ADVERTISEMENT

While Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. made the Obama administration’s case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health-care law Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, telling Verrilli, “we’re not stupid.”

Justice Elena Kagan, a former solicitor general appointed by President Obama to the high court, sided with Verilli in arguing that young people should be required by the federal government to purchase health insurance because eventually, others will subsidize their health care in the future.

Scalia shot back, arguing that young people will make the decision to buy health insurance eventually and do not need to be forced by the federal government to engage in commerce.

The transcript of the exchange is below:

[BlatherNaut]

Why is Kagan even allowed to hear this case? How preposterous.

She comes off as trying to coach Verrilli through his arguments. It's impossible to ignore her previous involvement in the strategic defense plans for this atrocious bill.

She's a shameless, corrupt hack.

[GeronL]

I am not sure if this is live or not but its good.

[newzjunkey]

Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House in 1804, and was acquitted at his Senate trial in 1805.

[Soul of the South]

Five Republicans voted for Kagen: Senators Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Richard Lugar (Ind.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine). These five also backed Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.

[mikrofon]

young poor people should be required by the federal government to purchase health insurance contribute to entitlements because eventually, others will subsidize their health care entitlements in the future

[Enterprise]

There are nine justices hearing the case, so I don't how it could end up in a 4-4 tie.

I lost track of which case the court decided to hear anyway. In theory, if the court brought before it the case where the judge ruled Obamacare unconstitutional, a 4-4 tie would end Obamacare. If a different case was brought up by a Judge who upheld Obamacare, a 4-4 tie would let Obamacare stand.

[Randy Larsen]

Exactly what one would expect from a small brain.

[Randy Larsen]

Not gonna happen because of that.

It’s purely unconstitutional.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

If we had better senators she wouldn’t be sitting there at all.

[stephenjohnbanker]

But we don’t !

[Secret Agent Man]

Socialism == pay it backwards (the future people pay for the past’s bills)

[Gay State Conservative]

There are nine justices hearing the case, so I don't how it could end up in a 4-4 tie.

I was adressing the possibility of Sotomayor recusing herself from the case.As for a possible 4-4 tie I'm not sure how the SCOTUS works...I think it might be that only a majority can overturn a law.But I'm sure that someone who knows more will correct me if needed.

[SueRae]

Thank you for that!

[Mike Darancette]

Justice Elena Kagan, a former solicitor general appointed by President Obama to the high court, sided with Verilli in arguing that young people should be required by the federal government to purchase health insurance because eventually, others will subsidize their health care in the future.

Isn't this some type of weird age discrimination?

[NKP_Vet]

Because her girlfriend told her to be there.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Yep

[stephenjohnbanker]

Yep

[sargon]

If the Pubbie House leadership had even half a set they would be drawing up articles of impeachment against Kagan even as I type.

I agree. The general timidity and cowardice of this Congress is truly breathtaking. Collectively, they can't muster the will to do anything constructive. It seems as if every assault from the left is met by apathetic silence from our Representatives and Senators.

[Enterprise]

Ok. In a scenario where Sotomayor might recuse herself, it would probably mean that Kennedy would vote with the liberals leaving a 4-4 tie. And that would leave intact the ruling of the lower court that is before the USSC.

[cuban leaf]

—It would be the equivalent of giving Obama a blank check to ruin the United States!!—

Precisely.

I think we are clearly seeing the build up to the biblical prophesy described in various old and new testament texts.

Either that or we’re just in for a world of hurt as we were in the first and second world wars.