Posted on 03/28/2012 7:47:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Tuesday may have been the biggest day in Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's career, when he went before the Supreme Court to defend the central tenet of the health care reform law.
To many who were watching, it looked like he choked.
"He was passive. He was stumbling. He was nervous," CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told POLITICO. "I was just shocked.”
His halting delivery was so pronounced that BuzzFeed mercilessly edited together 40 seconds of coughing, throat clearing and water-drinking.
"I've seen him argue under pressure," said Arnold and Porter's Lisa Blatt, a former assistant to the solicitor general who's argued 30 cases before the Supreme Court. Blatt, who listened to audio of the argument, said, "That's not the way he usually sounds."
Blatt said she was primarily surprised that Verrilli "didn't seem that excited to be up there." Given that this is one of the biggest cases in modern history, she said, "I would think it would be a blast to be up there." But Supreme Court lawyer and SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein defended Verrilli's presentation, suggesting that critics were making too much of a few awkward pauses early in his remarks.
The reality, Goldstein said, is that Verrilli had a hard case to make that relied on the intricacies of health insurance economics. He needed to demonstrate that someone's decision not to buy health insurance is, in fact, an economic "activity" that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause. Try making that sound snappy. "There are sides of cases that are easier to argue and sides of cases that have better bumper-sticker answers, which is what the plaintiffs have here," said Goldstein, who was in the courtroom. "If the government loses, it’s going to lose because of [the substance of] its case. Don Verrilli did a fine job."
It may not matter one way or another how Verrilli performed, implied Randy Barnett, a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Oral argument seldom changes the justices' minds regardless of how impressive an advocate's performance is.
"Oral arguments rarely affect the outcome of the case, and I don't know that today is any exception," Barnett said.
That may be a shame for Barnett’s side as superstar lawyer Paul Clement — a former solicitor general who is representing the 26 states challenging the law — gave an outstanding performance by all accounts.
"Paul Clement is a god," said Tom Goldstein. "He gave the argument of his life."
-- Josh Gerstein and Glenn Thrush contributed to this report.
“Oral argument seldom changes the justices’ minds regardless of how impressive an advocate’s performance is. “
That’s what I think, too. And none of them REALLY want to say no to the king. He would simply impeach any opposition by executive order and get rid of them. Who would stop him?
It’s all a “dog and pony show”, the Justices made up their minds months ago, nothing that happens will sway their vote one way or the other.
There isn’t a person in this world who would have looked good representin his case yesterday. He had absolutely nothing to work with.
You can make a man chip paint, but you can’t tell him how fast he’s going to chip, or how good a job he’s going to do.
Who COULD defend the indefensible? Most liberal tenets have to be bolstered with pretzel rhetoric, revisionist history, distortions and outright lies, and this one’s no exception.
The mandate is clearly not constitutional, under contract law, equal protection, separation of powers, states rights, restraint of trade, and it also alters the individual’s relationship to the government. Obamacare is not merely un-constitutional, it is anti-constitutional.
The only thing that’s not clear is how the Supremes will rule.
Hard to sound confident when lying and defending the undefendable.
Lipstick on an Obama pig bill is still just lipstick on an obama pig bill.
If the Obama administration had wanted a solicitor general who could win, they should have offered Robert Bork $100 million to come out of retirement and write and then argue the case before the Court....
But the left would have lynched themselves before they’d resort to doing something like that.... (giggle!)
The fix is in.
They will back Obama.
Can’t have the first negro president go down in the history books as a blihering commie nincompoop.
Even though he is.
*sigh*
Obamacare is not merely un-constitutional, it is anti-constitutional.
It should be a crystal clear forgone conclusion...
Seems to me that the Commerce Clause is too often used as a 'Commie' Clause.
Maybe the guy is choking on purpose. Maybe Obama wants this to fail so he can re-submit the healthcare issue as an actual tax for establishing 100% socialized medicine. It would appeal to his base of loser takers.
I agree with your observation. Hard to sound confident when your arguments are hollow.
When will the Supreme Court’s final decision on this case be made public?
Sometime in June. I think this is all formality and the decision has already been made. I’m not full of confidence.
It's really hard to argue that bullsh*t doesn't smell.
Then he can run against Congress and the conservative Supremes.
And he can drum up his lethargic base, by proposing the "only" thing he can now do about the health care "crisis"... SINGLE PAYER... which is what he and the left wing really wanted all along.
I’m afraid I agree with you. The ruling will probably be something like “We’re going to rule that the government can force the citizens to purchase insurance but that doesn’t mean the government can force the citizens to purchase a Chevy. We’ll consider future forced purchases on a case by case basis.” Then, as Rush said and as we all know, that is the end of the constitution and liberty.
Don’t flame me. It’s just mho.
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.