PDA

View Full Version : Scalia..the Cornhusker kickback,..?????



Qtec
03-29-2012, 03:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There was in a strange moment in today's severability argument at SCOTUS. Justice Antonin Scalia referred to a deal that Sen. Ben Nelson once made, to make a hypothetical point about what could take down the law.

"If we struck down nothing in this legislation but the -- what's it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay?" asked Scalia, talking to Paul Clement. "When we strike that down, it's clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That can't be right."

The deal that Scalia was referring to -- legendary in conservative anti-Obamacare circles -- was not a classic "kickback." Nelson negotiated for indefinite, unending Medicaid funding for his state. That ended up as part of the bill that initially passed the U.S. Senate on a 60-40 vote.

Here's the rub: It's not actually part of the law. Democrats removed the Nebraska deal in the final tortured negotiations that passed the PPACA in the House. When it got to the Senate again, Democrats only needed 51 votes to pass it; Nelson, who'd gotten the bad press from the deal AND nothing to show for it, glumly voted no.

Here's another rub. In early coverage of Scalia's zinger, the fate of the "kickback" is totally left out. It might be because no one in the room pointed out the mistake. Or it might be that Scalia, and lots of other people, have internalized the conservative case against the law. </div></div>

This is all BS. Scalia has already said that the mandate is constitutional.

Q

Soflasnapper
03-29-2012, 02:08 PM
Yes, that Cornhusker kickback, and the Louisiana purchase, and wasn't there a third one? were all taken out of the final bill, not that it changes their talking points.

A little embarrassing that big-brain Scalia doesn't know that, even as much as we do not expect the typical r-winger to know it.

Still, Scalia already said the mandate was Constitutional? By what analogous statement do you claim that is so, since he has not said that directly, that I know of.

Qtec
03-31-2012, 06:19 AM
Scalia has also admitted to NOT having read the bill!
Its not that long ago that Republicans were raving about legislators not having read bills they voted for! Now its ok for a judge to rule on legislation he hasn't even read.



Q

Qtec
03-31-2012, 06:41 AM
There's this.

link (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259267/scalia-and-commerce-clause-robert-verbruggen)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The case was Gonzales v. Raich, and the issue was whether the federal government had the right to forbid California residents to grow medical marijuana in their own homes, for their own personal consumption. It was a perfect test case: California law permitted medical marijuana, and the drugs, being illegal for the growers to sell, had absolutely nothing to do with commerce of any kind.

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government. Scalia fleshed out his views in a concurring opinion that was primarily based not on the Constitution itself, but on the Supreme Court’s ever-loosening interpretation of it.

“The court [has] recognized that [non-economic activity can] be regulated as ‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated,’” Scalia wrote. Then, he endorsed a rather broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause: “As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, <u>where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce,</u> ‘it possesses <u>every power needed</u> to make that regulation effective.’” </div></div>



Q

LWW
03-31-2012, 03:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scalia has also admitted to NOT having read the bill!
Its not that long ago that Republicans were raving about legislators not having read bills they voted for! Now its ok for a judge to rule on legislation he hasn't even read.



Q </div></div>

Reading the bill is irrelevant so long as a the bill requires a violation of the COTUS.

DiabloViejo
03-31-2012, 04:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[/quote]

Reading the bill is irrelevant so long as a the bill requires a violation of the COTUS. </div></div>

This has got to be one of, if not THE single stupidest thing, you've ever written! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Definition of RELEVANT

1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand
b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion &lt;relevant testimony&gt;
c : having social relevance

Soflasnapper
03-31-2012, 04:23 PM
[quote=Qtec]There's this.

link (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259267/scalia-and-commerce-clause-robert-verbruggen)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The case was Gonzales v. Raich, and the issue was whether the federal government had the right to forbid California residents to grow medical marijuana in their own homes, for their own personal consumption. It was a perfect test case: California law permitted medical marijuana, and the drugs, being illegal for the growers to sell, had absolutely nothing to do with commerce of any kind.

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government. Scalia fleshed out his views in a concurring opinion that was primarily based not on the Constitution itself, but on the Supreme Court’s ever-loosening interpretation of it.

“The court [has] recognized that [non-economic activity can] be regulated as ‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated,’” Scalia wrote. Then, he endorsed a rather broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause: “As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, <u>where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce,</u> ‘it possesses <u>every power needed</u> to make that regulation effective.’” </div></div>

Ah, the old 'necessary and proper' clause! Kevin Drum mentioned this clause would be the one, not the commerce clause, at the core of the decision.

Soflasnapper
03-31-2012, 04:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scalia has also admitted to NOT having read the bill!
Its not that long ago that Republicans were raving about legislators not having read bills they voted for! Now its ok for a judge to rule on legislation he hasn't even read.



Q </div></div>

Reading the bill is irrelevant so long as a the bill requires a violation of the COTUS. </div></div>

Surely the part that allegedly violated the COTUS must be read, to determine that is the case, though?