[Sgt_Schultze]

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.

Because none of them had read the idiotic law either.

[the invisib1e hand]

oh,yahoo! (is that the name of a business?) you're so smart. Clearly the Justice didn't know that.

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.

[MichaelNewton]

Does anybody really know what is and isn’t in this monstrosity?

[TexasSecede79366]

I found this buried deep in Yahoo comments and it's priceless

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)

[mrsmith]

“no one... challenged his claim. “

Duh, because it was a joke Oliver. Buy a clue.

[eyedigress]

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.

[Boomer One]

Any law that denies an American the right to life by virtue of a government panel has to be unconstitutional.

[kcvl]

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

[M. Thatcher]

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.”

[JewishRighter]

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.

[2001convSVT]

Did Justice Antonin Scalia, mention the Louisiana Purchase kick back deal to buy Senator Mary Loretta Landrieu vote also?