Scalia mocks health care law ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ provision—that no longer exists

[ictsooner7]

and HE is going to decide? Like the right side during the debate READ THE LAW, READ THE LAW!


Scalia mocks health care law ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ provision—that no longer exists

By Olivier Knox | The Ticket – 2 hrs 54 mins ago

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.

Scalia's quip came on the third and final day of oral arguments before the court on what has come to be known as "Obamacare," and specifically on whether the justices could rule that the requirement that individuals buy insurance or pay a penalty was unconstitutional but not strike down the rest of the law.

Clement was arguing that the entire law had to go, and Scalia was gently challenging him.

"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.

Scalia went on: "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."

It isn't right.

Senate leaders had initially included about $100 million in federal Medicaid assistance for Nebraska as part of what aides said at the time was a plan to secure the support of one of the state's senators, Democrat Ben Nelson. But the ensuing controversy over the sweetheart deal—which saw Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office coin the term "Cornhusker Kickback"—led even Nelson himself to argue that it be removed. Lawmakers stripped the arrangement from the law, replacing it with a far broader measure helping all states to expand Medicaid.

Scalia's comments came after two years of charges from the Tea Party that few, if any, people are fully familiar with what the law actually says. "Read the bill!" was a frequent chant at rallies against the measure before it passed. And Republicans have often mocked then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's contention that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."

Scalia is a fierce defender of a doctrine of legal thought called "textualism," which aims to interpret laws according to the plain meaning of the language they use. Scalia once wrote that "a text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

The "kickback" quip wasn't Scalia's only joke about the text of the law. At one point, the blunt-speaking justice scoffed at Kneedler's suggestion that the justices could go through the measure to decide which provisions to spare in the event that they ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional.

Scalia expressed shock: "You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the court to do that? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we're going to go through this enormous bill, item by item, and decide each one?"

That led Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, to jab at her colleague a little later in the argument.

Kagan said the justices should "look at the text that's actually given us."

"For some people, we look only at the text. It should be easy for Justice Scalia's clerks," she added, to laughter from the audience.

Scalia had the last word: "I don't care whether it's easy for my clerks. I care whether it's easy for me."

[olevetonahill]

Shouldnt you have started THIS thread in the Basket ball forum?

[OU_Sooners75]

Still not as bad as out dumbass whegro president saying there are 57 states!

[KABOOKIE]

Since not one person challenged hon on it, i'm going to claim they're all just as stupid. Even the libural judges.

[ictsooner7]

Still not as bad as out dumbass whegro president saying there are 57 states!

Slip of the tongue on the campaign trail and supposedly studying the law to ask questions on the highest court in the land. You are right, equal.

[ictsooner7]

Since not one person challenged hon on it, i'm going to claim they're all just as stupid. Even the libural judges.

So Scalia says it and no one cahllenged him on it so that makes them as dumb? Ever thought they didn't want to show him up?

[OU_Sooners75]

Slip of the tongue on the campaign trail and supposedly studying the law to ask questions on the highest court in the land. You are right, equal.

Pretty much about as relevant as what you are trying to bring up.

You do know that the SCOTUS Justices are not politicians right?

You do know that the Mandate was going to be deemed unconstitutional...and I would not be surprised if it came at a 9-0 vote or a 5-4 vote....it will be deemed unconstitutional, which it is.

[OU_Sooners75]

So Scalia says it and no one cahllenged him on it so that makes them as dumb? Ever thought they didn't want to show him up?

Ever thought that they thought it was no big issue since it is no longer part of the bill or law?

Hmmm.....you're proving more and more stupid with ever post there KC.

[ictsooner7]

Pretty much about as relevant as what you are trying to bring up.

You do know that the SCOTUS Justices are not politicians right?

You do know that the Mandate was going to be deemed unconstitutional...and I would not be surprised if it came at a 9-0 vote or a 5-4 vote....it will be deemed unconstitutional, which it is.


Very relevant, he should know whats in the law he is deciding. It is amazing how you guys give passes to conservitives and not to liberals. Just appying the same standard.

[OU_Sooners75]

Very relevant, he should know whats in the law he is deciding. It is amazing how you guys give passes to conservitives and not to liberals. Just appying the same standard.

And like I said, our future presidents that actually are born in this country and study in this country can tell you without blinking or thinking how many states are part of this country.

Hell, even with our territories there are not 57 states or territories.

Call it what you wish...just proves our President is dumber than a sack of rocks! Great speaker, but stupid!

[OU_Sooners75]

Or what about his political pandering with the Russian president?

What was it he said? That he would have more flexibility after the election? What is he scared of doing something with Russia that will make it impossible for him to get re-elected?

The guy is a goon!

[ictsooner7]

And like I said, our future presidents that actually are born in this country and study in this country can tell you without blinking or thinking how many states are part of this country.

Hell, even with our territories there are not 57 states or territories.

Call it what you wish...just proves our President is dumber than a sack of rocks! Great speaker, but stupid!


Columbia, Harvard, Editor of the Harvard Law Review, Professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago. Yeah, real dumb.

[okie52]

Very relevant, he should know whats in the law he is deciding. It is amazing how you guys give passes to conservitives and not to liberals. Just appying the same standard.

Heck icky, according to pelosi, most congressmen weren't going to know what was in the bill until after they passed it. Can't really hold the SC to a higher standard on interpreting it.

[cleller]

Columbia, Harvard, Editor of the Harvard Law Review, Professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago. Yeah, real dumb.

I don't want to waste the time to put up Scalia's credentials, but I think it is safe to say they are equally impressive, and would shame anyone posting here.

[diverdog]

Or what about his political pandering with the Russian president?

What was it he said? That he would have more flexibility after the election? What is he scared of doing something with Russia that will make it impossible for him to get re-elected?

The guy is a goon!

He was talking about a policy that was started under Bush but I am sure you do not want to hear that part of the story.

[sappstuf]

Scalia's quip about cruel and unusual punishment was pretty damn funny..


Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

[LiveLaughLove]

Columbia, Harvard, Editor of the Harvard Law Review, Professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago. Yeah, real dumb.

He was not a professor. He was some adjunct or some crap. He is a constitutional expert like Satan is a Bible expert. He sees it as a document of negative rights that limits government and gives too much power to the individual.

He is all about the collective and wants a constitution that promotes that. In other words, pretty much the exact opposite of what we have.

And as long as Kagan gets a vote on this, then I have absolutely no problem with Scalia getting one. It's a complete joke that you would be throwing even bigger hissy fits than normal if a Bush appointee that actually helped create the law was sitting in judgement of it and didnt recuse themselves and you know it. So oh to the well.

Lastly, not knowing 50 states is a little more than a slip of the tongue. How can anyone and I mean anyone not know its 50 even for a split second?

[LiveLaughLove]

He was talking about a policy that was started under Bush but I am sure you do not want to hear that part of the story.

Funny, I didn't hear the part where he said, "Bush told me to tell you to tell Putin that I can be more flexible on missile defense AFTER the election." One of these days, Obama is going to have to own his own Presidency.

BTW, Pravda endorsed Obama today. Co-inky-dinky? I think not. Helps though. I always look at who is for and against on issues. I like seeing the Russians in Obama's court and not ours.

[OU_Sooners75]

Columbia, Harvard, Editor of the Harvard Law Review, Professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago. Yeah, real dumb.

Because god knows book smart is being smart! LOL

[OU_Sooners75]

He was talking about a policy that was started under Bush but I am sure you do not want to hear that part of the story.

Please do tell.

What it tells me is he is a coward for not acting in the interest of what he thinks he should. Instead, it tells me he is more worried about getting re-elected, which he wont.

I stand by my opinion of the guy. He is a goon. And this is coming from a guy that volunteered in one of his local campaign offices back in 2007 and 2008. And a guy that cannot stand his lies and same ole politician crap spewed from his mouth!

[LiveLaughLove]

Breyer is one of my more disliked Justices because he portrayed himself as a moderate/conservative to get the appointment and has been staunchly liberal ever since. He is a liar plain and simple and I have no use for him. Since we are chastising Scalia, how about Breyers performance so far:


Many liberals are criticizing Solicitor General Don Verrilli for his defense of the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare but some are noticing that even the liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer made some very noticeable mistakes in his own contribution to the hearing.

He quoted a few cases, including the creation of the national bank, Congress making people drive faster than 45 -- 40 miles an hour on a road, spouses being responsible for removing their significant other's marijuana stashes and a man growing his own wheat go into the market and buy other wheat for his cows.

Breyer cited case law, but in all four instances got it wrong.

No one says these folks are perfect. They are not. I am sure we can find stupid things from each one of them. The fact is, including Kagan, they get to sit there for life and there isn't anything any of us can do about it.

[StoopTroup]

Please do tell.

What it tells me is he is a coward for not acting in the interest of what he thinks he should. Instead, it tells me he is more worried about getting re-elected, which he wont.

I stand by my opinion of the guy. He is a goon. And this is coming from a guy that volunteered in one of his local campaign offices back in 2007 and 2008. And a guy that cannot stand his lies and same ole politician crap spewed from his mouth!

Using your theory of volunteering for people who spew lies...exactly who's campaign have you worked on that didnt?

[soonercruiser]

and HE is going to decide? Like the right side during the debate READ THE LAW, READ THE LAW!


Scalia mocks health care law ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ provision—that no longer exists

By Olivier Knox | The Ticket – 2 hrs 54 mins ago

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.

Scalia's quip came on the third and final day of oral arguments before the court on what has come to be known as "Obamacare," and specifically on whether the justices could rule that the requirement that individuals buy insurance or pay a penalty was unconstitutional but not strike down the rest of the law.

Clement was arguing that the entire law had to go, and Scalia was gently challenging him.

"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.

Scalia went on: "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."

It isn't right.

Senate leaders had initially included about $100 million in federal Medicaid assistance for Nebraska as part of what aides said at the time was a plan to secure the support of one of the state's senators, Democrat Ben Nelson. But the ensuing controversy over the sweetheart deal—which saw Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office coin the term "Cornhusker Kickback"—led even Nelson himself to argue that it be removed. Lawmakers stripped the arrangement from the law, replacing it with a far broader measure helping all states to expand Medicaid.

Scalia's comments came after two years of charges from the Tea Party that few, if any, people are fully familiar with what the law actually says. "Read the bill!" was a frequent chant at rallies against the measure before it passed. And Republicans have often mocked then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's contention that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."

Scalia is a fierce defender of a doctrine of legal thought called "textualism," which aims to interpret laws according to the plain meaning of the language they use. Scalia once wrote that "a text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

The "kickback" quip wasn't Scalia's only joke about the text of the law. At one point, the blunt-speaking justice scoffed at Kneedler's suggestion that the justices could go through the measure to decide which provisions to spare in the event that they ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional.

Scalia expressed shock: "You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the court to do that? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we're going to go through this enormous bill, item by item, and decide each one?"

That led Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, to jab at her colleague a little later in the argument.

Kagan said the justices should "look at the text that's actually given us."

"For some people, we look only at the text. It should be easy for Justice Scalia's clerks," she added, to laughter from the audience.

Scalia had the last word: "I don't care whether it's easy for my clerks. I care whether it's easy for me."

Gee! I wonder what version of the bill that they sent to the SCOTUS?
If it was the older version with all the kickbacks, secret deals, and "eventually discoverable" screw jobs.....no wonder Sotamayor is fighting so hard for them.

And, no mention of the liberal justices giving the gobment lawyers primers on what to say, and how to argue for a point!
Hypocrisy!

If anything, it is illustrative of how corrupt the whole legislative process was, when this one-party was in-charge, and held secret meetings to make the real decisions on a process that they promised to keep open to the public.

[soonercruiser]

Columbia, Harvard, Editor of the Harvard Law Review, Professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago. Yeah, real dumb.

Longest paying job - community organizer!
;)