Donald Verrilli Makes the Worst Supreme Court Argument of All Time

[wpelb]

Virtually everyone agrees that today's arguments before the Supreme Court were a disaster for the Obama administration. Adam Serwer sums up the reason:

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.

Mother Jones

[PoliticAverse]

1. 'Disaster', 'spectacular flameout', 'Worst ... of All Time' - Hyperbole much ?

Anyway, here are some other comments on the performance: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-solicitor-general-donald-verrilli-had-rough-start-200423085.html

[cstanleytech]

2. You know whats funny? In that link it says

"In his several decades in private practice, Verrilli also took on death-row prisoners' cases pro-bono, ABC News reported."
He is looking good for a man probably in his late 80s to early 90s.

[wpelb]

3. Verrilli's age

Wikipedia says he was born in 1957 (no month or day is given, however), making him 54 or 55.

He got his J.D. in '83, so he could have had two full decades of private practice prior to today. I guess "several" means "two."

[cstanleytech]

4. Yes, I know he was born in 57, I am poking fun at the author for the screwup.

[area51]

6. +1

"ObamaCare" should be called GingrichCare. The real democratic party is awol; no way should they be pushing republican legislation.

We need improved Medicare for all/single-payer.

[kenny blankenship]

7. A Clear Case Of Reaping What You've Sown

Don't we all remember the depraved spectacle of Max Baucus' orgy with the insurance lobby? Don't we all remember how President Obama and Sen. Baucus encouraged Charles Grassley to fuck their bill up the ass sideways again and again, on the daft (and probably disingenuous) premise that offering Chuck "one more crack at her" would bring bipartisan support for the final legislation? Don't we all remember those "fucking retarded", "left of the left", "professional hippies" WARNING REPEATEDLY that dropping the public option and saddling the bill with an individual mandate would likely result in a Constitutional challenge?

Could anything conceived in such squalor and as the issue of so many shady deals and paid for backroom couplings stand the light of day? Yes, it is difficult for the nation's best lawyers to speak up in the ACA's defense because it is indefensibly incoherent and corrupt. That's in keeping with its disorderly and corrupt origins.

In the end though, the Supreme Court will uphold it -because, not in spite of- its corruption. It matches their own too well.