In review, both sides agree: the Administration's High Court arguments were not what all thought they might be In fact, the Administration seemed wholly unprepared for the questions of the Justices.


Adam Serwer, owner of the huge and very liberal  "Mother Jones" blog,  is relatively furious.  I believe his opinion is typical of those on the Left  - more than disappointed to the point of being discouraged. 

Serwer wrote:  "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….


'What is left?'  Justice Antonin Scalia demanded of Verrilli, 'if the government can do this, what can it not do?'….

Justice Samuel Alito asked the same question later. 'Could you just—before you  move on, could you express your limiting principle as  succinctly as you possibly can?' …. Where the lawyers challenging the mandate invoked the Federalist Papers and the framers of the Constitution, Verrilli offered jargon and political talking points"  

Serwer concludes with this observation: If the law is upheld, it will be in spite of Verrilli’s performance, not because of it."  

Here is a video made by the RNC. It sums up the oppositions view of the Obama performance.  It seems both sides agree.



No comments:

Post a Comment