They wrote it. They know what's in it. Why would they need to read it?
It seems to me that the Supreme Court is simply following the protocol set by Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid. Had the bill been available to read before passing, so that everyone who voted knew what was in it, I might be sympathetic to your complaint. But because the democrats didn't bother, it seems to me that the precedent has been set already, and the Supreme Court is simply following their lead.
Typical GOP answer: they did it, so it's ok if we do it.
I also noticed that neither Bader-Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor or Breyer haven't complained about not reading the entire thing either, surely if they felt that it should be read cover to cover before they can deliver an honest opinion that they would have brought that up, right?
Or maybe they're not whiny?
But, what is the purpose of hearing arguments if they read the entire thing? This is what you simply don't get. If they read the whole thing they could form their opinions entirely without arguments at all. They know the Constitution, they would know from reading whether it was constitutional or not, and wouldn't need any lawyers to tell them what they already know.
Because court cases are about spinning things. You can have 9 justices read the same thing and get 9 different answers on why something is constitutional or not, all by experts on the Constitution who can back up what they say. The point of the arguments is to make those justices go with what your side of the argument is.
Do you have any judges in your family? I ask out of curiosity...my dad was a judge in Michigan for 12 years, and I know from conversations with him that very rarely do judges nitpick the entire complaint in front of them. They skim for the major details, and then let the prosecutor and defense present their cases. Cases aren't won or lost because of the specific wording in the case file most of the time, they are usually won or lost based on the persuasiveness of the attorneys involved...because judges simply don't have the time to do all of the research for every fact for every case. It's unrealistic. Yet, this is exactly what you expect them to do.
Actually if there's a case before the Supreme Court that is going to change the lives of the entire country, I'd expect them to know more than the basic idea of it. I'd rather not have something that important be based off skimming the document.
I suspect there is an ulterior motive to wanting them to go item for item through 2,700 pages though...what you are really saying is that you want the process to take so long that by the time they finish, the election is over, because you know that if when they strike it down, it will be a huge embarrassment to Obama, and could cost him the election.
Not exactly but thanks for trying to read my mind. Actually as I said, I'd rather them know what they're talking about rather than have a general idea of it.
