WH: We still have confidence in Donald Verilli

posted at 11:35 am on March 28, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

If so, the Obama administration might be alone on the Left in saying so.  After the disastrous session of oral arguments on the individual mandate yesterday — which Jeffrey Toobin called “a train wreck for the administration” — most of ObamaCare’s backers were not exactly generous with Verilli.  At Mother Jones, Adam Serwer called Verilli’s performance “abysmal,” and the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein criticized his delivery and noted that the liberal justices had to rescue him.  A couple of journalists compared him to arguably incompetent sports figures like JaVale McGee and Billy Cundiff.  That’s the kind of notoriety that Solicitors General rarely get, and never want.

So far, though, the Obama administration stands behind him, perhaps because they don’t have any relief warming up in the bullpen:

“Mr. Verrilli is an extraordinarily talented advocate who possesses a sharp mind, keen judgment, and unquestionable integrity. He ably and skillfully represented the United States before the Supreme Court yesterday, and we have every confidence that he will continue to do so,” White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler said in a statement.

Is the White House arguing that Verilli couldn’t offer a coherent defense not because he’s not capable of doing so, but that he’s defending the indefensible?  That’s what the RNC thinks, which rides to Verilli’s rescue in a way with their new ad:

Ouch. Today should go a little better, however, as the Supreme Court moves away from the individual mandate and focuses on severability and the expanded Medicaid mandate.  Those are issues where the administration has more of an arguable position, especially on  Medicaid:

The Supreme Court will complete its review of President Obama’s health care law Wednesday by considering whether all of the law must fall if part of it is found unconstitutional, and whether the law’s proposed Medicaid expansion violates the federal-state partnership.

The Medicaid expansion decision might have the most lasting impact on the federal government’s ability to use its spending power to pressure state action. The Supreme Court has said there is a limit to what the government can force states to do in order to receive federal funds — a condition cannot be “so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion.” But the court has yet to find a case where the federal government has gone too far.

Once again, the justices may look for a limiting principle, but at least this time the precedent has long existed for federal control of Medicaid decisions.  As Steven den Beste wrote earlier today, severability is the key — even more so after yesterday’s debacle for ObamaCare backers.  If the court finds that the lack of a severability clause expresses the wish of Congress, then overturning any part of ObamaCare will force them to throw the entire bill out (including the Medicaid expansion).  It will be difficult to explain how the removal of the severability clause during the legislative process was anything other than deliberate, but then again, the court found a right to abortion in an emanation from a penumbra nearly 40 years ago, so anything is possible.  A lack of severability would bring us back to square one — and utterly negate two years of work by Obama and Democrats.

Update: Toobin follows up his analysis yesterday by emphasizing today how “awful” Verilli’s performance was:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“I give Vermin a solid B+ on his performance.” — Barky

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM

The wheels on the bus go THUMP THUMP THUMP!!

Khun Joe on March 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Chu gives Verilli an A-.

lorien1973 on March 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I always get suspicious when the libs say they are “confident” in something. It means the fix is in.

portlandon on March 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM

WH:We still have confidence in Donald Verilli

Second part of the quote: “he took the dive we asked him take.”

WisRich on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Inclined to agree with Professor Althouse, who sniffs an O’bama conspiracy here to intentionally “blow” the case.

If O’bama and company wanted to present their “case” credibly, why use a lawyer whose expertise is in the field of media? Verilli’s most notable case as a litigator was to shut down the P2P file sharer known as Grokster.

Last time I checked, Grokster had nothing to do with health or medicine.

Del Dolemonte on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Wow the RNC has finally joined the game!

BobScuba on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Something tells me Alito might vote for this

liberal4life on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I always get suspicious when the libs say they are “confident” in something. It means the fix is in.

portlandon on March 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I’m getting suspicious that they are screwing up this badly on their signature item. It’s like they’re throwing the match. What’s really going on?

CurtZHP on March 28, 2012 at 11:42 AM

We still have confidence in Donald Verilli

“Your doing a good job Brownie” went a long way towards instilling confidence too. The liberal media loved that one.

Rovin on March 28, 2012 at 11:42 AM

I always get suspicious when the libs say they are “confident” in something. It means the fix is in.

portlandon on March 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I get more suspicious when people like Carville are claiming that an undesirable outcome would actually be wonderful for them.

That smacks of them knowing they’re in DEEP sh!t and are hoping to get out in front of SCOTUS’ ruling to claim victory even in defeat.

teke184 on March 28, 2012 at 11:42 AM

As to severability – don’t lawyers to to school and learn that ‘if it ain’t it writing, it ain’t’?

GarandFan on March 28, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Something tells me Alito might vote for this

liberal4life on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

The voices in your head are back. You shouldn’t listen to them.

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2012 at 11:43 AM

The legislative history is three years old. Dems had a severability clause in this thing. Then they yanked it. And then they passed it.

How much clearer does legislative intent need to be?

SCOTUS may go 5-4 on the mandate, but they have to go 9-0 on severability.

BuckeyeSam on March 28, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Good grief,

The states are not subordinate parts of the federal government. They cannot be forced to spend money or raise taxes to support federal diktats.

How this could pass constitutional scrutiny is a sign of how much of the Constitution we’ve abandoned. Can you imagine the Founders’ reactions if they were told that the federal government, a construct of the states, can give orders to the states? They would be shocked into speechlessness.

Charlemagne on March 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM

What is PBHO supposed to day, Vermicelli is an idiot and we’re going to start over with someone different? The goofs in the administration just realized that General Percival is leading their defense.

Bishop on March 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM

I spent a career working in and out of DC…and when a Cabinet official or the White says “We still have confidence in John Smith…”

Well, John Smith is already cleaning out his desk, closing out accounts, turning in his beeper and access pass/badge and looking for a way to tell family and neighbors he needs a job.

coldwarrior on March 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM

“Your doing a good job Brownie” went a long way towards instilling confidence too. The liberal media loved that one.

Rovin on March 28, 2012 at 11:42 AM

In sports, a team owner giving a coach or manager the “vote of confidence” is usually the clue that the coach or manager is about to be fired.

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Well, really, no one else could have done any better. Verilli did the best anyone could do. The most informed and articulate presentation of the government’s case possible.

de rigueur on March 28, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Verilli acted stupidly.
-bho

crash72 on March 28, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Something tells me Alito might vote for this

liberal4life on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

…saving the diaper today I see…just all brain farts this morning. Got a bad rash?

KOOLAID2 on March 28, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Something tells me Alito might vote for this

liberal4life on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

You’re outta your damn mind. Of course we all already know that about you.

Charlemagne on March 28, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Almost feel sorry for this tool after he loses. The left will skewer him as the reason for their failure. Like I said, almost.

msupertas on March 28, 2012 at 11:46 AM

White = White House. But you guys knew that.

coldwarrior on March 28, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Good grief,

The states are not subordinate parts of the federal government. They cannot be forced to spend money or raise taxes to support federal diktats.

How this could pass constitutional scrutiny is a sign of how much of the Constitution we’ve abandoned. Can you imagine the Founders’ reactions if they were told that the federal government, a construct of the states, can give orders to the states? They would be shocked into speechlessness.

Charlemagne on March 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM

The states entered into a contract with the Federal government in the case of Medicaid. The Feds can change the terms at any time. The states have 2 choices: Accept the new terms or fund Medicaid entirely on their own.

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Verilli isn’t their problem. He is, by all accounts, a very good lawyer. Considering the circumstances, I didn’t think he did that badly.

Their problem is the turd they gave him to put a polish on for the Supremes. Apparently, some of the justices still have functioning olfactories, and they know it when they smell it.

Slightly OT: Listening to Breyer took me back to my school days. That guy reminds me of some of the worst professors I ever had. Very impressed with himself and infatuated with the sound of his own voice dispensing all that wisdom. Can you imagine how that guy would act if he was in front of TV cameras?

novaculus on March 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I actually don’t think Verrilli did an incompetent job at all.

REMEMBER: It’s a game of expectations. The Washington Press Corps. took Obama’s line that the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare was frivolous and the Court would uphold the law 8-1. They didn’t bother to engage the arguments and just took Obama at face value (gee, has that ever happened before?).

But that changed when the Press Corps. sat through two painful hours of the Government’s awful arguments. They realized, for the first time, how strong the 26 states’ arguments were, and how weak the Government’s were. It’s understandable that their reaction is to blame the lawyer who argued the case.

But, let’s face facts–the Government’s case here is awful. I’m sure Verrilli did the best job he could with what little he had to work with.

Outlander on March 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I think the Dems don’t mind losing on the mandate if they can sever it from the rest of the Marxist bill. It will quickly kill the insurance companies and for e a single payer, government system. Their end game.

Charlemagne on March 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Typical leftist mediots–they eat their own.

stukinIL4now on March 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

From the clips I’ve seen, Verilli did himself no favors with his style. When an appellate judge asks a question, the first word out of your mouth had better be a “yes” or a “no” followed by “your honor”. Instead of answering this way, Verilli started arguing with where he thought the judge was going with the question.

Of course, hindsight is the reason so many on the left are being critical now. If Justice Kennedy’s questions had been more like Justice Ginsberg’s and it appeared that the mandate would survive 5-4, the left would not care how Verilli answered questions asked by Justices Scalia, Allito and Chief Justice Roberts.

It’s not Verilli’s fault that the President and his henchmen (Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi) put together such a poor plan. If they had allowed debate on the bill, maybe some of the problems would have been discovered and had been fixed. Instead, they bribed folks who were on the fence into voting for it and Fancy Nancy even told those questioning parts of the bill that they had to vote for it to find out what’s in it.

Well, the Supremes have this pesky habit of reading things before they vote. Why am I now reminded of The Emperor’s New Clothes?

EconomicNeocon on March 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Community organizers usually work behind the scenes and leave nothing to chance…

d1carter on March 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

So what if the law is struck down! Romney is already talking about replacing it. And what if democrats sweep in November. Write up single payer, even better.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

WH: We still have confidence in Donald Verilli

Don Verilli, the sooper-dooper bright lawyer who was selected from the same bright mind that selected Joe Biden, Tim Geithner and Steven Chu.

Kingfisher on March 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Nice summation of Carvin’s smackdowns on the O-care arguments:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294643/michael-carvin-instructs-court-ramesh-ponnuru

onlineanalyst on March 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

I’ll bet Kagan wishes she had recused herself now.

coldwarrior on March 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

“I hope the government doctors aren’t as fu*king useless as my government lawyer.” –President Barack Obama (March 27, 2012)

 

C’mon… this is the Barack Obama presidency and administration we’re talking about here. President Obama is a feckless and disingenuous leader of the supreme kind. President Obama’s ‘transparency’ is about as clear as bayou mud and it has been from the moment of his birth. His ‘rule of law’ are his own rules that he makes up as he goes along so that they may suit his needs and desires. His ‘touchstones’ are standards of leadership that would make a gentle Josef Stalin green with envy for this bloodless coup we are suffering through — and failing to extinguish.

 

The White House is “Confident” only because the fix is in.

FlatFoot on March 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Something tells me Alito might vote for this

liberal4life on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

That was last night’s cabbage. Light a candle.

DanMan on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

onlineanalyst on March 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

I thought Carvin was the best of the lot…

d1carter on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Ah yes, the dreaded Vote of Confidence. With baseball managers, it means you’ve got one week left.

rbj on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

@ EconomicNeocon

Yo, great post.

What do you mean by this:

Well, the Supremes have this pesky habit of reading things before they vote. Why am I now reminded of The Emperor’s New Clothes?

Fish on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

“Mr. Verrilli is an extraordinarily talented advocate who possesses a sharp mind, keen judgment, and unquestionable integrity. He ably and skillfully represented the United States before the Supreme Court yesterday, and we have every confidence that he will continue to do so,” White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler said in a statement.

And besides, Elean Kagan coached him on the fine points of potential argument before she headed of to her SC appointment.

onlineanalyst on March 28, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Just a tad confused .. Happens often.
We’re hearing the Gov’t’s case, right?
Have the states had their chances, already ? when? and do we accounts of those ?
Been too busy making a living to follow as closely as I wish I could.

pambi on March 28, 2012 at 11:52 AM

I tried civil cases for 41 years before retiring a year or so ago.
In the last 15 years I specialized in “awful” cases: That is, cases that seemed to have bad facts when viewed through the eyes of jurors and regarding which many other “trial attorneys” did not want to try. Doing that requires enormous preparation, especially for all of the attacks that you know and figure out will come from the other side regarding the supposedly bad facts. You have to be ready with your response and be able to deliver it calmly in extreme circumstances, when almost everyone in the courtroom already believes there is no good answer. There is no excuse to be other than perfectly prepared, even more so when supported by the unlimited resources of the federal government, as Verilli is.

GaltBlvnAtty on March 28, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Part of the problem of this law is that it is so complex, so interlocking, that no one can tell what will happen if any part of it is removed as unconstitutional.

There is also a problem with the number of boards that are set up that have no appeal process to them… not just internally but AT ALL… by the citizenry. Yet the EPA ruling just prior to this upheld that there must be an appeal process that goes not just through an agency, but through the courts. It is interesting that the SCOTUS isn’t giving that any scrutiny because it is setting up a system where bureaucratic rules can’t be given any public input, any public scrutiny nor any external appeal via due process.

Congress did not include a severability clause for a reason: they didn’t know what would happen if any part of the thing got thrown out by a court so it is better to start over than try to rescue a crippled law with unknown consequences.

It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS goes, but due to the lack of capability to answer questions of applicability brought up while the law was still in formulation indicates a lack of understanding about the law by those who passed it and those who argue for it. If you can’t answer the broccoli question now, then you have no way to differentiate food from a drug… and when you examine any definition of either, and that they are both set to have effects on a body and health, there is little way to distinguish them.

Fun times are not ahead for this law, no matter what the ruling is, because of the assumptions involved, the inability to differentiate medical activity from daily activities, and the lack of public scrutiny and recourse built within the law itself.

ajacksonian on March 28, 2012 at 11:53 AM

DanMan on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Hey, I had some cabbage last night. Didn’t give me brain farts. That only happens when your head is up your ass.

Oh, wait….

novaculus on March 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

0bamaderangementsyndrom = ODS = odious = loathing; disgusting; offensive

Good handle even if you can’t spell your own name.

DanMan on March 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

And I suspect many states would opt out if the tax dollars of their citizens could then remain with the states. The problem is that when a state opts out, its citizens taxes are still taken but now given to someone else. Opting out ought to mean fully opting out to include the taxes of that state’s citizens staying in the state.

The Federal Tax Funds Act could resolve this hostage situation.

Charlemagne on March 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Don Verilli, the sooper-dooper bright lawyer who was selected from the same bright mind that selected Joe Biden, Tim Geithner and Steven Chu.

Kingfisher on March 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

This is why I don’t buy into the conspiracy stuff about them “throwing the case.” Ockham’s Razor suggests that Verrilli is just a political hack out of his depth.

For goodness’ sake, the man’s a media lawyer, not a Constitutional lawyer.

KingGold on March 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Name a single competent person around Obama. Problem is lefties don’t argue for change. They shove it down your throat.

MeatHeadinCA on March 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Pray tell, what string of stunning successes in Supreme Court arguments has this administration achieved that make yesterday’s performance so blatantly out of character that it convinces people it was a dive?

sistrum on March 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM

What’s really going on?

CurtZHP on March 28, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Short answer: MONEY!

The Obama administration, (and Nancy Pelosi), made deals with both the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals in exchange for tons of money placed into the Democratic campaign coffers. With the SC decision going against the mandate that would benefit these industries (in billions of new business), Obama has found a perfect reason to re-negotiate/double-dip these industries, (a mild form of extortion), to re-elect this fraudulent re-distributionist. It’s all about the money.

Rovin on March 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM

“We[Congress] can do whatever we want.” is clearly written in the constitution… the Founders would stand by Popessa Pelosi no doubt.

mittens on March 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM

WH: We still have confidence in Donald Verilli

George McGovern:I back Senator Eagleton 1000%

We all know how that one turned out

NoFanofLibs on March 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Watching this court process is like watching a soccer game. The ball is kicked back and forth until someone finally scores a point about 30 minutes later. The thing is, the fans of the losing team will riot afterwards. Hmmm, I wonder if the same thing will happen here?

Cherokee on March 28, 2012 at 11:58 AM

A lack of severability would bring us back to square one — and utterly negate two years of work by Obama and Democrats.

What “work” did Obama do, other than flap his gums?

He was born to do that and only that. That’s not work, it’s just what he does and who he is.

NoDonkey on March 28, 2012 at 11:59 AM

The Government’s lawyer today, Edwin Kneedler is doing better (he has argued over 100 cases before the Supremes) but the law may be going down. Roberts asked, what happens to the rest of the law if the Medicaid expansion is struck?

txmomof6 on March 28, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Verilli did a horrible job yesterday in defending ObamaCare in part because it’s indefensible, but his predecessor actually did a more competent job of it.

Whoops.

Red Cloud on March 28, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Now the lsm is praising sotomayor for her awesome questions

Pitiful

cmsinaz on March 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM

they still have confidence in Eric Holder too.

#thatsnotsayinmuch

ted c on March 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Kennedy finds it “odd” that government finds it competent that they can strike some part down, but incompetent to decide which part to keep.

txmomof6 on March 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Something tells me Alito might vote for this

liberal4life on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

And how will this troll respond when the decision is 9-0 to throw out the mandate? “Alito acted stupidly”???

Rovin on March 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM

We already know the WH talking points if this goes down

It’s those evil conservative justices fault

cmsinaz on March 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

WH: We still have confidence in Donald Verilli

Obama: I give him a B+.

I might have added that last bit.

Physics Geek on March 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

they still have confidence in Eric Holder too.

#thatsnotsayinmuch

ted c on March 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM

And Biden !!

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2012 at 12:05 PM

From the WSJ LiveBlog:
Justice Scalia suggests there has never been another high court case where the justices have struck down the “heart” of a law, but left the rest of it in place. Mr. Kneedler says it would be an “extraordinary” move for the court to strike down a huge number of the law’s provisions that have nothing to do with the insurance mandate.

txmomof6 on March 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Are these RNC ads only on the internet or do they target them in specific areas?

Donald Draper on March 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM

That was last night’s cabbage. Light a candle.

DanMan on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Close the thread!

Chuck Schick on March 28, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Do you suppose Kagan was involved in the decision to take out the severability clause?

txmomof6 on March 28, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I always get suspicious when the libs say they are “confident” in something. It means the fix is in.

portlandon on March 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Yep.

Something tells me Alito might vote for this

liberal4life on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

That’s the same thing that informs all of your beliefs – leftist sunglasses shielding your little mind from the real world.

Name a single competent person around Obama. Problem is lefties don’t argue for change. They shove it down your throat.

MeatHeadinCA on March 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Exactly. He’s packed his administration with true leftist believers. Just like him, they don’t believe anything they say, but they have utter faith in their “vision” for how the world should be.

peski on March 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM

So what if the law is struck down! Romney is already talking about replacing it. And what if democrats sweep in November. Write up single payer, even better.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Sure they will. You couldn’t get even get the public option with the House and a supermajority. After the 2010 asskicking, the Democrats won’t go near healthcare for a decade or 2.

But pass the bong anyway.

Chuck Schick on March 28, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Great linky Onlineanalyst

cmsinaz on March 28, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Rush’s first ppint: ALL THIS FOR 15M people who’ve CHOSEN to not have health insurance coverage ?
REMEMBER the manufactured crisis, folks.

pambi on March 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Something tells me Alito might vote for this

liberal4life on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

That was last night’s cabbage. Light a candle.

DanMan on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Explosive!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bda_eIX3J2Y

Del Dolemonte on March 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM

This law is going down. Liberal law professors and legal analysts across the country have been spinning about how the law was obviously constitutional under Wickard, and that in light of the holding in Raich, a few conservatives might even join in a concurring opinion upholding Obamacare. All of these learned hacks wrote off conservatives who rightly pointed out that growing marijuana and growing wheat is in itself activity, even the harvest was entirely used for local/personal purposes. By contrast, with the individual mandate, economic inactivity is considered activity, and therefore the government is allowed to mandate actual activity. Its a mind-boggling argument that clearly lacks any limiting principle (the keystone factor in recent CC analysis). All of the “experts” who thought the law was clearly constitutional were willfully blinding themselves to the law’s constitutional defects, and now they are paying the price.

Lawdawg86 on March 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Kingfisher on March 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

This is why I don’t buy into the conspiracy stuff about them “throwing the case.” Ockham’s Razor suggests that Verrilli is just a political hack out of his depth.

For goodness’ sake, the man’s a media lawyer, not a Constitutional lawyer.

KingGold on March 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

But wouldn’t his being a media lawyer tend to lend credence to the “throwing the case” possibility? If they wanted to make their case, wouldn’t they have sent somebody else instead?

Del Dolemonte on March 28, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Nobody is mentioning that Valerie Jarrett was sitting in the court room observing. I think somebody ought to arrange 24 hour presonal protection for Verilli. Otherwise, he may literally get thrown under the bus.

parke on March 28, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Nonsense. Obama’s true confidence lies with the subservient supreme court justices that he has bought and paid for.

rplat on March 28, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Nobody is mentioning that Valerie Jarrett was sitting in the court room observing. I think somebody ought to arrange 24 hour presonal protection for Verilli. Otherwise, he may literally get thrown under the bus.

parke on March 28, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Hmmm. Shades of Vince Foster in Fort Marcy Park?

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Have you heard of the new music group called Milli Verilli?

They can’t even lip synch.

Dextrous on March 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM

In the RNC ad, are my speakers bad or did Verilli go silent for 15 seconds?

Steve Z on March 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I apologize if someone has already asked this question but has anyone thought of the possibility of Obama and his administration of bullies aren’t sweating because they intend to somehow buy-off or threaten the members of the court to rule in their favor? Surely I’m not the first person to wonder about this…

justjulie20 on March 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Nobody is mentioning that Valerie Jarrett was sitting in the court room observing. I think somebody ought to arrange 24 hour presonal protection for Verilli. Otherwise, he may literally get thrown under the bus.

Maybe he’ll get an appointment to SCOTUS instead, like his predecessor.

teke184 on March 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM

This is why I don’t buy into the conspiracy stuff about them “throwing the case.”

KingGold on March 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

One conspiracy theory is that Vinelli is intentionally acting this way because he wants a high level job at MS-NBC. (/humor)

Kingfisher on March 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Does anybody really believe one single Justice changed his or her mind on this case yesterday? These folks had their minds made up long ago on this case.

Most appellate court judges take pride in NOT being swayed by oral argument.

Captain Kirock on March 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM

From the WSJ Live Blog:
Justice Scalia would have none of that. He said that there wouldn’t be 60 Senate votes, presumably Republicans, to break a filibuster and repeal the entire act, so the other provisions would remain on the books. Mr. Farr replied that it was not appropriate for the court to make legislative choices reserved to Congress.

txmomof6 on March 28, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Funny that the proggies didn’t send the most brilliantest constitutional lawyer evah to exist to fight this constitutional case for them. Is he at least mentoring Verilli?

slickwillie2001 on March 28, 2012 at 12:28 PM

liberal4life on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Hot Air’s greatest asset– thread count accelerator…

hillsoftx on March 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM

It was like the old movie The Verdict, with the judge completely in cahoots with the defense lawyer. Only in this case it was all four liberal Supreme Court judges completely in cahoots with the government’s lawyer. There was nothing judicial about it. They were doing his advocacy for him.

David Blue on March 28, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Severability- it’s what’s for breakfast.

Congress intentionally left out a severability clause. Determining the intent behind that action will be key to the entire argument for overturning this monstrous, tyrannical, unconstitutional power grab by Obama and Democrats.

They left it out because the legislation would not have passed with it and more importantly, because the entire case for it collapses- financially, argumentatively, logically and legislatively without it.

Marcus Traianus on March 28, 2012 at 12:36 PM

The states entered into a contract with the Federal government in the case of Medicaid. The Feds can change the terms at any time. The states have 2 choices: Accept the new terms or fund Medicaid entirely on their own.

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Hobson.

Barnestormer on March 28, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Be a lot more expensive without the mandate, others have seen that the legislation would never have passed otherwise… junk this drek.

Ukiah on March 28, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Something tells me Alito might vote for this

liberal4life on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

What? That little voice of stupidity? You ought to stop listening to that. (Of course that would mean you’d have to change your username.)

dominigan on March 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I’m getting suspicious that they are screwing up this badly on their signature item. It’s like they’re throwing the match. What’s really going on?

CurtZHP on March 28, 2012 at 11:42 AM

They want single payer. Which will look better, after ObamaCare is destroyed.

I knew it was you Fredo.

portlandon on March 28, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Something tells me Alito might vote for this

liberal4life on March 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Something tells me that what’s in my cats litter boxes is smarter than you are.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 28, 2012 at 12:44 PM

This sounds like the Detroit Lions saying they have confidence in Matt Millen.

Ward Cleaver on March 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Ward Cleaver on March 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM

The Cubbies have confidence in Zambrano.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 28, 2012 at 12:47 PM

This is what Chicago politicians always say just before they bring out the long knives. It’s like that scene from The Godfather where (who was it? Pacino?) kisses that other guy right on the lips, but not for love. “You broke my heart, Verilli.”

If the White House has to express confidence in you, it’s the kiss of death.

rogaineguy on March 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM

The problem is not Verilli.
There is no good argument for the mandate.
Perhaps Verilli knows this? I imagine his mind wandering to
“I should have been a carpenter”, or “I will be a famous loser”.
Carville is busy making lemonade.

PaleoRider on March 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2