electorate. bruce, justice scalia, you write in the book it s obvious he s a very, very smart man, very schooled in debate. he came up and debated at georgetown. we hear from the bench, particularly on the health care reform case, we hear him echoing arguments straight out of right wing blogs talking about how long the health care law is and making the broccoli argument and bringing up things like the corn husker kickback that weren t even in the law once it passed. has he changed over time, moved further to the right and become more part son? is he part of the reason why the court has become less popular? i think part of what he s doing is more partisan. he s a very provocative man, really an academic at heart. he likes to say things that in his words kick shins. he s a shin kicker.
adopting some of these tea party arguments drawing things, even in oral arguments from the sort of tea party websites. for example, the broccoli argument, if we allow people to have health care, next thing you know, government would be man dating broccoli. justice scalia made that argument from the bench. entitlement being a racial preference. that was unbelievable to hear. i know you were in that room that day. i was the guy that almost passed out in the room.
republican talking points about the health care bill. he talked about the broccoli argument. he complained about how long the bill was. he brought up the cornhusker kickback which even isn t actually in the bill. how unprecedented is it to hear those sorts of talking points reiterated from the bench and also, is it fair to say that republicans have really influenced the justices over the past year in this argument? well, for one thing, it was quite surprising unprecedented both at oral argument hearing him talk about the cornhusker kickback, talking about broccoli, making arts that you really only saw on cable news. but i think it s just of a piece with scalia s general bad boy enfante terrible personality. we saw it on monday in the arizona immigration case. he departed from the four corners of the issue before him and went after president obama over the d.r.e.a.m. act. i think it s just the way he is.
opinion did also sort of not directly address the president s executive order, but also sort of addressed it as well, so it s not scalia, but on the health care law during the arguments, he referenced the broccoli argument. even complained how long the bill was. they re not jurors. they re not sequestered, so they don t live in a vacuum. this is very much a signal they re living in the world. very much aware of the politics. very much was concerned about the perception of the politics of the court and i want to ask professor rosen really quickly, president obama has not been shy expressing his disapproval at times of this court s decision. do you think that s something they consider? do you think that s something that goes through your mind or do they shake it off and say
well, what the broccoli argument is seeking out, and i think this really gets at the ways that this isn t just partisan etiology. it s seeking out the limiting principle. and i think a lot of the constitution as something if it created the government and the government should go arnold and try to solve the problems that it can solve. now, you know, i m phrasing that in a lib rat way. i think it s not something that limits if government s power power, but it s the only source. if you say that the government does have the power, what is the limiting principle? and so the broccoli question is saying where if even if you re going to say the government can t forks you to buy broccoli, why can it force you to buy this and not that. i wanted to put a pin in that