White House Defends Embattled Solicitor General

The White House is coming to the defense of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, whose efforts to defend the president’s health care law Tuesday are under attack as a “train wreck” and “The Worst Supreme Court Argument of All Time.”

Read the whole story: politico.com

Comments

[zermattski]

12:44 PM on 03/29/2012

This guy is a JOKE, just like his boss!

[rads48]

07:09 PM on 03/28/2012

If this LA Times story is true..it looks like we won't have to wait until June to know how the court will rule.

Obamacare is as dead as Obama's career soon will be.

"Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law

By David G. Savage

March 28, 2012, 8:35 a.m.
Reporting from Washington—
The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down......

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

[tazscanner]

06:52 PM on 03/28/2012

Well I hope they would, the Justices made him look like a first year law student.

[williamina]

09:25 PM on 03/28/2012

i think we have a solicitor colonel

[GodBlessTexas]

03:16 PM on 03/28/2012

How funny, the crowning "achievement" of the Obama administration getting ruled to be unconstitutional. What else has he done? Start a war against religion, destroy our American values, make a foreign relations trainwreck.

Ridiculous legislation, passed by a ridiculous president.

[jondekonkeroo]

04:44 PM on 03/28/2012

so what did you like best about bush, the wars or the poverty?

[williamina]

09:26 PM on 03/28/2012

obama is the food stamp pres, own it

[zermattski]

12:40 PM on 03/29/2012

the 4% unemployment.

[beartrack]

06:01 PM on 03/28/2012

You sure have no idea what you are babbling about. Oh, that's right, you're from texas.

[jrfromdallas]

03:00 PM on 03/28/2012

I wouldn't let this guy defend me for a parking ticket

[GodBlessTexas]

03:17 PM on 03/28/2012

Has striking similarities to all of Obama's appointments. Useless.

[rads48]

07:03 PM on 03/28/2012

You make the mistake of blaming ther messenger..when he was trying to defend a hopeless message.

This is what happens when you pass legislation that you have to pass first to find out what's in it.

A fitting end to a disgusting display of arrogance.

[goodog]

03:00 PM on 03/28/2012

"A few minutes in I thought he hit his stride and made his points well under incredibly hostile fire," Miller said.

No, Verrilli never really recovered from whatever condition overtook him. That having been said, even the conservative justices seemed to be framing questions in a way to help him get to his totally lost point. The media narrative that they were antagonistic doesn't really stand up to listening to the audio. Roberts and Alito in particular asked insightful questions that, yes, challenged the premise of the arguments made in the governments brief, but that's what they're supposed to do.

Verrilli's deplorable performance overshadows the rest of the arguments made by the two anti-Mandate lawyers. Yes, they were polished and professional, cogent and confident performances, but the justices on both sides asked probing and challenging questions. Roberts even says that Carvin's fundamental argument (that the problem that Obamacare hopes to fix doesn't in fact even exist) is "unfair". Alito questions the basic definitions of "commerce" that Carvin's using.

Even the conservative justices scratched their heads rhetorically over Clement's preposterous contention that the customer base for health insurance is just as able to abstain from consuming medical services as they are from buying cars. Clement kept insisting that there's no difference between the two markets, as if one day we're all dragged screaming into a car and forced to drive it before we're told to buy it, even if it's the last thing we ever do in life. (Simply substitute that preposterous car for the inevitable ambulance, and his argument crumbles explicitly.) The justices, conservative and liberal, clearly didn't buy it, and they said so with a tone the media might interpret as scorn if it fit their editorial narrative.

Clement and Carvin were well-paced, interesting and compelling, even, in all the ways that Verrilli's was a presentational travesty, but the media narrative that the bench bought the anti-mandate argument can't be sustained in front of an audience that kept listening to what came after the Verrilli's debacle.

Yes, the justices challenged the government's case with lots of telling questions, but they also questioned the anti-mandate position, which, though remarkably upbeat and polished by comparison, didn't really have a particularly strong rationale to stand on under tough, rational and arguably antagonistic scrutiny.

[CA93010]

03:51 PM on 03/28/2012

Thanks for that very excellent UNBIASED summary! Very informative. This won't be decided today, regardless what the cons seem to think.

[CynAnne]

02:54 PM on 03/28/2012

After reading some of the ill-willed vitriol our wingnutter­­­­y has been posting about those who are without healthcare and/or employment, we'll leave it to Salon's Steve Kornacki to give a history lesson on the much-laude­­­­­­d (but rarely practiced) 'compassio­­­­­­nate conservati­­­­­­ve': http://www.salon.com/news/politics/republican_party/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/06/03/compassionate_conservatism_medicare

[baronvb60]

02:43 PM on 03/28/2012

"With those assumptions about employers’ behavior, CBO and JCT estimate that the ACA would reduce employment-based insurance coverage in 2019 by 20 million people, compared with 5 million in the baseline projections. Enrollment in the exchanges is estimated to be 31 million in that year, 9 million more than in the baseline, and enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP is estimated to rise by 18 million, 2 million more than in the baseline. The number of uninsured is estimated to be 29 million less than the number under prior law, leaving 28 million people uninsured in 2019. Those estimated differences in insurance coverage relative to the baseline are similar in direction to those in the first scenario but generally of greater magnitude. However, the estimated net budgetary effect is a decrease in the cost of the ACA, rather than an increase, as in the first scenario."

[baronvb60]

02:27 PM on 03/28/2012

Here are Politico’s ”four hard truths”:

1. Some people won’t get to keep the coverage they like;
2. Costs aren’t going to go down;
3. It’s just a guess that the law is going to pay for itself;
4. “The more they know, the more they’ll like it” isn’t happening

[evgolightly]

02:31 PM on 03/28/2012

Switzerland implemented Obamacare 20 years ago and none of those four hard truths happened.

Quite the contrary, costs have gone down and services are up. Look it up yourself.

[baronvb60]

02:37 PM on 03/28/2012

CBO says the cost will at least double

[Blazz]

02:25 PM on 03/28/2012

Photo caption: "Muuuaaaaah! The pasta, she eez-ah so-ah good-ah!!"

[CynAnne]

02:25 PM on 03/28/2012

Because it bears repeating.­­­­­­..
There IS one area of American government the T-Publican­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­'­t­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­­, both elected official and candidate alike, have been VERY focused on...and we should give them full credit. When we all stop to consider that MOST of the legislatio­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­n that T-Pub­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­s actually HAVE approved and passed focuses obsessivel­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­y (and, in many cases, solely) on restrictin­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­g American women from protecting their own reproducti­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­v­­­­­­­­­­­­e rights, well...as I've said before, all those jobs John "So Be It" Boehner promised America must be the new 'Female Fertility Inspectors­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­' program they're surely creating, based on their apparent fixation with American women...a­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­n­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­d our uteri.

[jondekonkeroo]

02:38 PM on 03/28/2012

the cane toads could only name post offices and legislatify against womanhood, so it seems. they've made us the laughingstock of the world and hacked up our credit rating. We need more liberal women in government. all other things equal, I'd prefer the woman every time to a similarly qualified man to put an end to this kind of persecution. I wenrt thru this in the fifties. it's like your crazy uncle escapes from prison and holds you hostage again.

[CynAnne]

05:45 PM on 03/28/2012

If it were only one (or even two) of those 'crazy uncles' that were chasing us, we could possibly thwack them on the noggin with a shovel until they're, shall we say, 'subdued' enough to be returned to their rightful incarceration. But there are dozens of these cretins passing the onerous 'legislation' I've linked to before...and will again now: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/27/maddow-forced-vaginal-probe-ultrasound-not-just-a-virginia-story/

[CA93010]

04:12 PM on 03/28/2012

LOL !!!

Female Fertility Inspectors ! Priceless!

Thank you!

[CynAnne]

05:46 PM on 03/28/2012

Most welcome and faved in return... :)

[albar]

02:24 PM on 03/28/2012

Universal Health Care is NOT like Medicare for all. 250 words are not enough to elaborate, but maybe I can get it across.

UHC is a system in which Insurance Companies and the government negotiate and agree upon:

a) Regulated cost for Health Care, including: Doctor visits, Procedures, Blood Tests, Surgeries, X-Rays, Mammograms and so on

b) Regulate PREMIUMS for Health Insurance. And here a difference must be made between Employed Workers and wages or salaries they make, People on unemployment benefits and the down and out poor. Different as it may sound, it's possible

c) Crunching Numbers (rounded up)

320 million total population

150 million employed
15 million self employed
15 million unemployed (on benefits)
130 million not working (either by choice because they can afford to, being rich,
age between 16-24, children under 16 and retired folks)
10 million "the down and out"

[albar]

02:24 PM on 03/28/2012

The rich can afford to buy whatever health insurance plan they want to buy..FOR THE REST OF US

We have a total of 180 million people that are either working or unemployed with benefits and are able to pay a meager $125.00 per month, on average, for health insurance. Important to note: ON AVERAGE. The unemployed would pay a little less, a good earner a little more. Kids on the plan...a little more

$125.00 per month would create an insurance pool of 22 and one half a billion of dollars PER MONTH. Let me repeat that. $22,500,000,000.00 per month.

The insurance industry would split the pool according to the number of member every individual company is able to sign up and the claims they have to settle.
Remember what I said earlier on. COST and PREMIUMS are negotiated and regulated.

They still will make a bundle
That's what Universal Health Insurance is all about.

Of course, the industry, with their GOP and dumb folks out there would hate a system like that.

[baronvb60]

02:17 PM on 03/28/2012

The number of pages of regulations being released due to ObamaCare is beginning to make the initial bill look like a pamphlet. By IBD’s count, the regulations are up to 5,931 pages.That includes small, two-pagers that counsel employers to give sufficient break time for nursing mothers, to the recent 644-page behemoth on the health insurance exchanges.

[jondekonkeroo]

02:26 PM on 03/28/2012

if government is too complicated for the tea rats, I'm not surprised. they can always go back to the farm and leave government to people smart enough to do it.

this begging from the right that their job is too hard is just another example of right wing intellectual decompensation. they want the bar lowered because they're special snowflakes.

I don't buy any of that. be responsible!

[baronvb60]

02:30 PM on 03/28/2012

You smart libs are losing in your day at court

[Salty too]

12:47 PM on 03/29/2012

And, " We have to pass the bill to know whats in the bill", from the queen of libs is what you call smart. Seems to me that the Dems were the lazy ones.

[rockinroll]

02:16 PM on 03/28/2012

This could be the best thing to happen . We might finally get Single Payer which is what it should have been!

[butterfly58]

02:24 PM on 03/28/2012

You will never get the 60 votes or the House to go along with that. I know you are trying to find a silver lining in a very dark cloud

[jondekonkeroo]

02:47 PM on 03/28/2012

bernie sanders has the silver lining. medicare for all can be done in reconciliation by a straight up and down vote.

that will give america ten years to see if they like it. if they don't, it can expire, but they will like it.