Posted on 03/26/2012 11:44:58 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court
On the first day of health care reform arguments before the Supreme Court, two justices needled a top Obama lawyer for simultaneously calling the fine that will be paid under the law for not purchasing insurance a “penalty” and a “tax.”
The confusion arises because of the administration’s argument that the power to enforce the individual mandate is rooted in Congress’ taxing power — but that the mechanism itself is designed to be a penalty, not a revenue-generating policy.
The narrow but important distinction created a communication challenge for the lawyer representing the Obama administration.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the phrase “tax penalty” multiple times to describe the individual mandate’s backstop. He portrayed the fee as a penalty by design, but one that functions as a tax because it’s collected through the tax code.
“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax,” said Justice Samuel Alito, in one of the few laugh lines throughout the 90 minutes of argument Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
Idiot! His contempt is shown by his stupidity.
That’s a con-law 101 level of mistake. (shakes head)
You gotta love liberals. Their solution to poor people who don’t have health insurance is to pass a law giving a hefty fine to people who don’t have health insurance.
Why shouldn’t Supreme Court Justices be laughing at the political cynicism and legal duplicity of Team Obama: everyone else is.
It’s hard to believe that W wanted Harriet Miers for SC, thank goodness intelligence prevailed and we got Alito.
Bump
Is there any reason to believe that Meiers was anything else but a stalking horse?
Anyone who has declared that they will not vote in November if their choice for POTUS does not win the nomination should reflect that another term for The Kenyan would change the face of the Supreme Court for years to come.
>>>I still can’t believe KAGAN was not forced to RECUSE....
It could still come to pass that she does recuse from deliberations and voting towards the court’s final opinion.
I also see the likelihood of that being none to slim, in that order.
On page 32 of the transcripts, the S.G. ADMITS that for today’s argument it IS a tax and that for tomorrow’s argument it is NOT a tax.
In poker, you have to be smart, real smart and cunning. One of the things you have to be smart about is making sure you don’t appear to be too smart.
Make the other player think they are smarter than you, make them laugh at you.
Play some hands and let them win some rounds; cement in their mind they can handle you. Show panic and desperation, show frustration and dumb moves. Then when a really strong hand lands to you, make them go all in, then kill them.
Make sure you have the last laugh.
The way I see it right now, you’re all having a good feeling.
And you know I think the conservative leaning justices are gonna make you smile, they are going to rip those ‘dumb’ democrat lawyers apart and they will flush the individual mandate down the sewer.
And you are all gonna feel good, feel happy like you’re winning.
And all the justices are gonna think we satisfied John Q. Conservative and his concerns but we gonna leave Lefty a little somethin.
And you won’t think much of what they leave the Left at first, but then you’re gonna feel you’ve been had.
And the Left Elite are going to have the last laugh:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2863884/posts?page=26#26
Don’t get cocky.
“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?”
Its easy to see which one is Foghorn and which one is Dawg ...
Con-law 101?
Sheesh, my 5yo granddaughter can come up with better explanations than that. Particularly when punctuated with a few bright little smiles.
....as was just demonstrated after she busted Grandma’s antique cookie jar whilst cleaning out MY store of goodies yesterday.
Kagan wasn’t put on there because of her race, which is white, or her ethnicity, which is Jewish but because she is a woman and a Lesbian, joining fellow Lesbian and “foolish Latina” Sotomayor. Maybe you were thinking of her. She is a triple bonanza for the multi-culti fascists.
Romneys picks would be nothing but the same as obamas.look who he put up for taxachussetts supreme court.ALL LIBS!Come on.
Just how FDR did it.
I was going to point out that the "NO ROMNEY! NEVER!" crowd will tell you Willard's appointments would be no different than Barry's.
But, I see one of them already weighed in.
Roberts should have forced her to recuse or removed her from the case. Obvious conflicts of interest. You can’t argue FOR something as its defender (solicitor general of the US) and then be a Justice on the SCOTUS and have anyone believe you could impartially rule AGAINST what you previously argued FOR.
Impossible for honest rational person to not admit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.