This is a must-watch: Democrat Senator Tom Carper defiantly saying that of course he’s not going to read the health care legislation, because everybody knows it’s incomprehensible. So why would you bother to read that gibberish when nobody can understand it anyway?
You think I’m exaggerating?
I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language, because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life. . . . When you get into the legislative language, Sen. Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day, and I don’t think anybody had a clue, including people who had served on this committee for decades, what he was talking about.
You have to laugh, to keep from crying:
This is Exhibit A in support of Beldar’s proposed amendment requiring legislators to read bills they vote on:
Every time I deal with a federal statute in the context of giving legal advice to a client — which is an utterly basic function of being a lawyer — I have to actually read and then understand the statute. My failure to do so would be malpractice per se — something absolutely indefensible, something never excusable under any circumstances. As soon as I admitted or it was otherwise proven that I didn’t read and understand the statute, the only question in a malpractice case would be the size of the damage award against me.
But if that’s an utterly basic function of being a lawyer who merely advises private clients on how the law may or may not apply, shouldn’t it be an even more basic function of a law-maker, a legislator, who creates the laws that apply to an entire country?
Seems pretty basic to me.