Democrats are fuming over Justice Antonin Scalia’s conduct during this week’s Supreme Court deliberations on President Obama’s healthcare law.
While several of the high court’s liberal justices seemed to cheerlead for its defense, Scalia appeared hostile to the law, an attitude that rubbed some Democrats the wrong way.
Scalia also joked that the task of having to review the complex bill violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
“You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?” he quipped. “Is this not totally unrealistic, that we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”
The comments did not sit well with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a member of the Gang of 14, which in 2005 established guidelines for considering judicial nominees.
“I am concerned that Justice Scalia’s comments call into question his impartiality and instead suggest judicial activism,” Nelson said.
More news from The Hill:
♦ Obama: Oil markets can handle expanded sanctions on Iran
♦ DOD pushing more forces into South America
♦ Obama, taking on Congress, could find new foe in Supreme Court
♦ White House report claims 'great strides' on intellectual property
Nelson was taken aback by Scalia’s suggestion that reading the law was too much to expect of justices ruling on its constitutionality.
Scalia’s use of the term “Cornhusker Kickback," coined by GOP political operatives during the healthcare reform debate, also raised concerns — especially since Scalia appeared unaware the provision was scrapped before Obama signed the law.
“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.
“It seems fitting that Justice Scalia’s attempt at humor instead displayed his ignorance of the law. Sen. Nelson hopes the justice will concentrate on the actual instead of the perceived or interpreted views as he weighs the laws against the Constitution,” Thompson added.
A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court did not respond to a request for comment Thursday afternoon.
Nelson secured a special $100 million payment to cover higher Medicaid costs during the 2009 healthcare debate, which Republicans slammed as the “Cornhusker Kickback.” Congress dropped the provision in response to a public uproar over it. Nelson’s approval ratings took a hit after the controversy, and he announced late last year that he will not seek reelection.
Regular observers of the court know that Scalia has a big personality and that his quips can have a sarcastic tone or verge on bombast. The personality quirks of the justices usually receive little attention, but this week was different as the court commanded the nation’s attention during three days of oral arguments.
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.
Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne FeinsteinDem: Trump's China trademark looks like a quid pro quo Senate advances Trump's Commerce pick Flynn told FBI he didn't talk sanctions with Russian envoy: report MORE (D-Calif.), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioned Scalia’s complaint about the bill’s length and musings on the “Cornhusker Kickback.”
“These arguments are flip and specious, that’s all I can say,” said Feinstein.
Feinstein said striking down the healthcare law would have enormous implications that should be taken very seriously.
“This could take down Social Security, too,” she said. “If the questions indicate a trend line, as reported, there’s real jeopardy for the government to achieve any real benefits for people. Even Medicaid is in question.”
She said Congress had put years of work and thought into healthcare reform ever since then-first lady Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonMilo's travails show how quickly fortunes can change in 2017 media Clinton campaign chair: 'Forces within the FBI' wanted her to lose Senate eyeing vote on Trump's Supreme Court nominee by Easter MORE spearheaded a failed reform effort in 1993.
“This is the biggest Supreme Court hearing, in terms of effect on the nation, in my lifetime,” Feinstein said.
A senior Democratic aide said Scalia’s conduct during the oral arguments was “unbecoming of a justice.”
“You would think after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United the court would be more sensitive to the perception that it’s politicized. Scalia seems unaware. He said some things that sounded like they came from a Republican spokesman,” the aide said in reference to the 2000 decision awarding the presidency to George W. Bush and the 2010 ruling that gave corporations and labor unions greater freedom to influence elections.
Democrats view Bush v. Gore and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as two highly politicized rulings that broke with precedent.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick LeahyPatrick LeahyVerizon angling to lower price of Yahoo purchase: report Dem senators call for independent Flynn probe Overnight Cybersecurity: White House does damage control on Flynn | Pressure builds for probe MORE (D-Vt.) said colleagues should not be surprised by Scalia’s behavior.
“That’s the way he always is. This, after all, is the man who helped push through Bush v. Gore, which every historian is going to say was a crazy thing,” Leahy said.
Scalia’s close relationship with former Vice President Cheney adds fuel to Democratic doubts about Scalia’s impartiality on politically charged legal issues.
Scalia came under scrutiny in early 2009 for a duck-hunting trip he took with Cheney at a private camp in Louisiana. Legal experts questioned the timing of the trip because it took place a few weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to consider Cheney’s appeal in a lawsuit related to his handling of a special energy task force during the Bush administration.
The Sierra Club asked Scalia to recuse himself, but he refused.
“Since I do not think my impartiality can reasonably be questioned, I do not think it would be proper for me to recuse,” he wrote in a memo at the time.
Scalia, 76, was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 1986.