Posted on 03/28/2012 4:54:54 PM PDT by shove_it
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia suggested on Wednesday that the Supreme Court could strike the "Cornhusker Kickback" from President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul without having to invalidate the whole law. He was right, in a way: The notorious provision isn't in the law.
The "Cornhusker Kickback" was the derogatory nickname of one of several sweetheart deals designed to ensure that the law had enough votes to pass. Amid a public uproar, lawmakers ultimately stripped the measure from the law.
But no one—not Scalia's eight colleagues on the highest court in the land, not Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, there to represent Obama, and not the superstar lawyer challenging the law on behalf of 26 states, Paul Clement—challenged his claim.
[...]
"The consequence of your proposition, 'would Congress have enacted it without this provision,' OK, that's the consequence. That would mean that if we struck down nothing in this legislation but the—what's it called, the 'Cornhusker Kickback'—OK, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, OK?" Scalia said, to guffaws from the audience.
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Because none of them had read the idiotic law either.
And clearly no other, clever and better hidden means, up to and including child sacrifices I'm sure, weren't employed to pass a law that Americans never wanted.
Death to The Media.
Does anybody really know what is and isn’t in this monstrosity?
Scalia used an example. He was really aiming at the various waivers and carve outs. E.g. unions get preferential treatment in the bill.
The linked article harked about the Cornhusker kickback, and was forceful to mention that, oh, by the way, it was eliminated during reconciliation. What is criminally not mentioned by the author is the dozens of other sweetheart deals (I do not know if they were retained or not...):
Vermont, Sanders, and $10 billion for community health centers (were they shovel ready?);
Non-profit insurer exemptions for MI and VT;
Medicaid funding for Pennsylvania, New York and Floriduh.
$300 million for Mary Landfill, LA and medicaid;
3-years Medicaid funding for MA;
Exactly, and it could very well be in there by another name.
Congress never read it to begin with therefore the supreme court should decide against it because how can you pass something "for the good of the country" when you don't know whats in it to begin with.
For all they knew it could have had all kinds of outlandish bits and pieces in it. What if it it was written by a racist or terrorist sympathizer? It could have demanded the death of all first born males for all they knew. Absolutely assinine not to strike this law down.
Who said these kids aren't paying attention? (Thanks Brian)
“no one... challenged his claim. “
Duh, because it was a joke Oliver. Buy a clue.
He did well in pointing out the compromises that ensued to pass the Law, and the totality is the sum of all the compromises, and cannot then remove just a single part without ruling "on the whole" that it is Un-Constitutional.
He could easily have made the statement that "why are there over 1,000 waivers if this is such a great Plan?"
I think Obama wants this to fail. He will then campaign on the evils of the Supreme Court that only he can save everyone from.
I liked his remarks and the laughter that follows was music to my ears! This legislation is ridiculous. The waivers and gimmicks it took to pass the legislation prove it.
The White House must have cringed at the laughter during the oral arguments. They are laughing at the biggest accomplishment Obama has. I would laugh too if my children did not have to pay for this madness!
Nanny Peelousy said it was like a kidney stone—we had to pass it to find out what it was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
But to Congress and all the zoo patrons it’s like a half deflated football being passed around the chimpanzee cage: They find they can’t screw it or eat it, so it remains a mystery for the Men/Wymen in Gowns.
(And one of them should be impeached for not recusing herself from this matter. She’s in violation of feral law.)
Any law that denies an American the right to life by virtue of a government panel has to be unconstitutional.
I guarantee someone had to tell this dufus too...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/yahoo-news-hires-olivier-knox-first-white-house-114041483.html
Yahoo’s yahoo writer had no clue what Scalia’s point was. It was a “for instance,” tying it to an equally nonexistent “Constitutional proscription of venality.”
Question: even though the Cornhusker Kickback was not in the final version of the bill, didn’t Reid use it to get an earlier bill past a filibuster-proof majority, so that, eventually, when the revised version was voted on, it was voted as a reconciliation bill which did not need a filibuster-proof majority (or Ben Nelson’s vote)? In other words, even though it wasn’t in the final version, it was essential to Reid’s procedural scheme to get around a potential filibuster?
If the answer is yes, then Scalia was right no matter what the rhetorical point was and these ankle biting lap dogs are wrong.
Well, you have to remember that Oliver, being a “liberal”, is inherently and by definition smarter than a Conservative supreme court justice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.