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.
Exactly, and it could very well be in there by another name.
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.)