It’s supposed to be their job to be independent, damn it!
Byline: bob | Category: Uncategorized | Posted at: Tuesday, 27 March 2012
“You can mark the point — page 14 — when the liberal justices decide Verrilli is screwing up and step in to make his argument for him.”
When Ezra Klein–Ezra Klein!–makes that observation, I don’t know who that damns more: Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, whose job it is to make the argument, or the “liberal justices,” whose role is to be independent.
Actually, that question answers itself. For the approved solution to this quandary, see here.
March 27th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
[...] EVEN MORE: On the other hand, there’s this. [...]
March 27th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Ill respond to that in my best Glen Reynolds mimic: HEH!
March 27th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
The corruption of the Rule of Law proceeds apace, with helping hands from the port side of the SCOTUS. It’s all about outcomes, Bob, and how to get them. If the referees have to step in so the right team wins the game, by God they’ll do it.
March 28th, 2012 at 6:31 am
Kagan, Sotomeyer, Brewer and Souter. Wholly politicized, utterly dishonest leftard ideologues, for whom the Constitution means only what they say it means. These arrogant wretches are advocates of tyranny, enemies of the rule of law unfit to sit in judgment on the Court because they don’t have any judgment to exercise. Kagan should be impeached. We must have judicial term limits.
March 28th, 2012 at 10:33 am
It is what it is, except when it isn’t. Got it. What a spectacle, recent appointees tryign to drag this idiocy across the finish line.
Finish it off! The citizens only probelm with healthcare before it passed was that it was too expensive. Now we have something even more expensive. Terrific.
March 29th, 2012 at 7:52 am
I agree that Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg were totally in the tank for Obama, and were actually making the gov case better than the lawyer. However Brewer was a bit more fair, and even criticised the gov lawyer once, when the gov lawyer kept saying the penalty was a tax, when it obviously is not. I think there is at least some possibility that Brewer might be a 6th vote to strike down the mandate. I thought the swing justice, Kennady, actually had the best questions, when he raised the question of this altering the relationship of the individual to the fed gov, and his comments indicate he is very likely to join the conservatives for a 5th vote. Kennady’s only pro Obamacare comment was when he acknowledged that there might be something unique about health care vs other markets, but even there he then undermined that a bit when he raised the likelyhood that future cases would also claim their market is unique.