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.”