Dem’s fuming is ironic. Don’t you think?
April 1, 2012 Leave a comment
Senator Ben Nelson has been on this earth for 70 years, but in all that time no one ever explained to him the concept of irony:
Scalia said [Wednesday] that it was totally unrealistic to read the whole law. Sen. Nelson didn’t think it was too much for the justices to know what they’re talking about when questioning the law’s content,” said Nelson spokesman Jake Thompson.
And of course Nelson is particularly upset. He voted in favor of Obamacare against his constituents’ wishes, and has been forced into retirement as a result. He sacrificed his career for a bill that could be nullified. Someone get Alanis Morissette on the phone.
Expect plenty more “fuming” from liberals, who have already expressed plenty of ire at the idea that the Supremes would even consider overturning the law:
“These arguments are flip and specious, that’s all I can say,” said Feinstein.
Indeed it is, Senator. Liberals who have tried to do more, i.e. listen to and take the conservative arguments seriously, have been left dazed by the logic. If conservative justices insist on having the temerity to take their jobs seriously, Democrats prefer they do it in a kinder, gentler fashion:
Scalia’s demeanor contrasted starkly with the evenhanded questioning of Chief Justice John Roberts.
Democrats are not inclined to give Scalia any slack because they think his mind is closed against the healthcare law and his judgment clouded by partisan politics.
But that is a facade. What really bothers liberals about types like Scalia, or the late Andrew Breitbart, is not their bombastic style but that they threaten to expose the lie of big government and the media that protect it. I’ll let Mark Steyn take us home:
Yet (Scalia) was unintentionally making a far more basic point: A 2,700-page law is not a “law” by any civilized understanding of the term. Law rests on the principle of equality before it. When a bill is 2,700 pages, there’s no equality: Instead, there’s a hierarchy of privilege micro-regulated by an unelected, unaccountable, unconstrained, unknown, and unnumbered bureaucracy. It’s not just that the legislators who legislate it don’t know what’s in it, nor that the citizens on the receiving end can never hope to understand it, but that even the nation’s most eminent judges acknowledge that it is beyond individual human comprehension. A 2,700-page law is, by definition, an affront to self-government.