Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tonto who wrote (127972)	3/28/2012 5:09:25 PM
From: longnshort	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224720

We have to rule it unconstitutional to know what's in it

To: tonto who wrote (127972)	3/29/2012 8:45:36 AM
From: TideGlider	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224720

It isn't necessary for the Justices to read the entire bill. They only have to read what is presented to them and refer to those portions of the bill which reflect the presentations of the arguing parties. They can, if they wish to review other portions of the act as it the bill has been presented to them., they are not required to do so. In consideration of the severability or lack thereof they may need to review what other features might remain in effect if the mandate is deemed unconstitutional.. Also this consideration is taken first by what is presented by those arguing the case and secondly on their own option. I might also note that SI has a poor, although useful spell check program. It needs updating Just for instance "recusal" or "severability" both come up as possible errors and there are many, many others.