“Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment?” Scalia asked — a joking reference to the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. “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 — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”
Yes! God dammit, yes! That’s exactly what I expect!!
Just out of curiosity, what does he propose the court base its decision upon? Just whatever the people said it contains? This is what’s become of American law (and I say this in a nonpartisan way). Bills are gigantic and unwieldy, voted upon without being read and then challenged by people who haven’t read them in courts where they can be decided upon by judges who haven’t read them after hearing arguments by lawyers who haven’t read them. And no one is able to figure out why all these sneaky provisions manage to squeak past everyone.
If the bills are too long to read, either make them shorter or buckle up and read them anyway. Judge motherfucking Judy won’t even decide a case until she reads all the pertinent documents, and Scalia is going to judge on a massive case like this without doing so? Too long? How long is too long? What length is just barely short enough to read? If a bill goes over that line by a page, does that mean we can just go on whatever people say?