Within the space of five minutes, hundreds of thousands of Americans on the Internet instantly became Ph.Ds in Constitutional Law. And they say the American education system is broken.
Guilty as charged.
I’d just be happy if people would READ it.
It’s 193 pages, so I seriously doubt anyone would want to read the entire thing. Section III-C is the part of the opinion every one is angry about which ultimately upholds Obamacare. Since most people here seem to be against the decision, they should read the joint dissent.
Well, . . .
. . . the other good news (for our family) is that although last week the company we applied to to provide our health insurance, declined to do so (due to pre-existing conditions), I am reasonably confident that we’ll eventually find something fairly good at a price we can afford. And before our COBRA coverage runs out.
And if it weren’t for this whole Obama care thing, my family might be facing a very different picture right now.
I’m just sayin’.
Marion, thanks for adding a little compassion to the discussion. These comboxes often give me the impression that Christ came to earth in order that we might hate one particular president.
I must say, I hate mocking comments like this. It insinuates that one need be a Constitutional scholar to understand the law. If that’s the case, then our system is severely dysfunctional and in need of major reform. For comparison…by the sixth century AD, Roman law had become so convoluted and contradictory that no one could understand it save a few brilliant scholars. One of the greatest achievements of Roman civilization was the synthesizing and simplification of 1,000+ years of Roman law into the Justinianic Code by Tribonian in the 530s AD.
We are in desperate of such a reform and simplification of our laws. Impenetrable complexity of law serves only one class of people–lawyers and those rich enough to retain them. We should take absolutely no comfort in the fact that only Constitutional Law scholars at Harvard and Yale are qualified to understand our system.
“It insinuates that one need be a Constitutional scholar to understand the law.” Oh, I don’t think you need to read the post like that. While you can read this post in five minutes, you can’t read SCOTUS’ opinion in five minutes. I think that’s more the point of this post.
Show of hands as to how many people offering analyses of the decision have actually read it in its entirety? How many people are, in fact, commenting on commentary they’ve read by people in the press?
I’m pretty sure we’re actually in agreement here, I’m saying that it *does* take more than five minutes to read SCOTUS’ opinion (although I’d settle for people just reading the syllabus 😉 ).
I’ve read it in it’s entirety. But then again, I have autism, and one of the *gifts* of that is a 1500 WPM reading speed with 100% comprehension. Or in computer terms, the perfect speed for my old style VT100 terminal is 9600 baud- I never need to use pause or more.
But even at 1500 WPM, it still took you more than five minutes, right? 😉
true. More like about 30.
Law, like theology, is complex. Deal with it. The Protestant impulse to say, “Any plowboy can read the Bible and master it” is not rendered sane by transferring that simplistic belief to an edifice as complex as US law.
What’s particularly ironic about this belief that the Bible is easy to understand is that the Bible actually says the opposite in 2 Peter 3:16.
Yup. Reading is not the same thing as comprehending.
Mark is right. The American hoi polloi should not concern their empty little heads with such esoteric subjects like what the U.S. Constitution actually means. They should leave that discussion to the ‘grown ups’ in Washington D.C. who are more than happy to tell us not only how to live but what we should think too.
Clearly, commenting on an uneducated rush to judgement on a complex ruling based on headlines and sound bites is equivalent to commenting that people shouldn’t try to understand it all and to accept DC’s edicts without question.
It’s like people have not been debating the constitutionality of this since it was being rammed thr0ugh congress a couple of years ago. It is not like constitutional challenges have been wending their way through the lower courts. It is not like James Madison helped to craft a remarkably concise and clearly written document based upon principles that were widely discussed at the time and those documents are available to us simpletons even today. It is not like public officials are required to swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and they are expected to have a pretty good idea what that means.
Nope the reality is that we were just all stumbling along thinking our mean thoughts and this was just dropped on us out of the blue and us simpletons just all rushed to judgement.
And this has what to do with declaiming on a 193-page document five minutes after its release? Talking about the ACA for the last two years is not the same thing as talking about the opinion five minutes after its release.
“If that’s the case, then our system is severely dysfunctional and in need of major reform. ”
I nominate that as obvious truth of the week.
Jordan Henderson is pants at football. And he’s a scouse wanker.
I’m not the English footballer. I’m more than twice his age. I had the name first and I’m not giving it up.
I thought about trying to sell him my twitter handle, but the TOS at twitter forbids selling handles…