Media Gloom: Government Lawyer for Obamacare Is Like a 'Fifth Grader' for 'Plane Wreck' Law
After another bad day at the Supreme Court for the Obama administration's health care law, journalists on MSNBC and CNN marveled at how the President's signature legislation seemed to be unraveling. Appearing on MSNBC, HD Net reporter Brooks Silva-Braga compared the Solicitor General (who defended the law in front of the court) to an embarrassed child.
Silva-Braga mocked, "If you've ever been to a fifth grade play and looked into the eyes of a kid who is not sure if he's going to remember his lines, that's what Donald Verrilli looked like yesterday." [See video below. MP3 audio here.] On CNN, Jeffrey Toobin, who on Tuesday reversed a previous prediction of an easy win for Obama, sneered that Obamacare had become a "plane wreck."
A gloomy Toobin predicted, "This still looks like a train wreck for the Obama administration and it may also be a plane wreck. This entire law is now in serious trouble."
He continued, "...It seemed almost a foregone conclusion today that they were going to strike down the individual mandate, and the only question is does the whole law go out the window with it?"
Fredricka Whitfield, the Newsroom anchor, appeared shocked: "Oh, my goodness!"
Back on MSNBC, journalist Mark Halperin dismissed the Obama administration's happy talk: "What else can they say? They can't say, you know, we think we might lose. Everybody agrees that the solicitor general didn't do a great job."
If three days in March is any prediction, the ruling in June might cause an apocalyptic media outburst.
A transcript of the two exchanges can be found below:
Now With Alex Wagner
03/28/12
12:03ALEX WAGNER: I want to open this up to the panel a little bit. Brook, you were in the room, the chamber, as it were. Let's talk about the dynamics yesterday. I think what, what Pete was saying about the salvage operation is telling. Because, as we've heard it thus far, the White House does not want the individual mandate to get untied from the broader Affordable Care Act. They know there's a lot of support for other pieces of the Affordable Care Act and separating the two would sort of undermine the entire plan.
BROOKS SILVA-BRAGA (HD NET): And it's probably not practical. But to what it was like in the courtroom yesterday, I know there's been some debate of just how bad a day it was for the Obama administration. If you've ever been to a fifth grade play and looked into the eyes of a kid who is not sure if he's going to remember his lines, that's what Donald Verrilli looked like yesterday.
WAGNER: Wow. I think that Mother Jones had something in there saying it was like one of the most spectacular flameouts in courtroom history which is not exactly what you want to hear from the guy arguing your case. Mark, you know, what Pete is saying about the assumption that the individual mandate may be, in fact, found unconstitutional is not good news for the White House. I mean, to put it mildly. And yet, we've seen out of the White House kind of a confidence that this thing is going to get held up.
MARK HALPERIN: What else can they say? They can't say, you know, we think we might lose. Everybody agrees that the solicitor general didn't do a great job.
CNN Newsroom
03/28/12
12:00
JEFFREY TOOBIN: This still looks like a train wreck for the Obama administration and it may also be a plane wreck. This entire law is now in serious trouble. It also seems that the individual mandate is doomed. I mean, Anthony Kennedy spent much of this morning talking about "if we strike down the individual mandate, how should we handle the rest of the law?" Now, it is less clear that they are going to strike down the whole law. There does seem to be some controversy in the court about that. Certainly there are some members of the court, Antonin Scalia, Justice Alito, who want to strike down the entire law, but it seemed almost a foregone conclusion today that they were going to strike down the individual mandate, and the only question is does the whole law go out the window with it?
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD: Oh, my goodness!
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
First Teamer?
Submitted by BuffNBone on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 5:03pm.
You only get one chance to make a first impression--the upside for them is it could have been Kagen.
Even better for them..........
Submitted by GregE on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 6:14pm.
..........Kagan worked on the arguments, now sits on the bench listening to them to judge them. Gee, I wonder how she'll rule.
How can she not recuse herself? She's pretty much set a historical high bar on how far a Justice can be involved in a case before needing to recuse. Sadly.
Toobin
Submitted by rockyracoon on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 5:12pm.
Of course this law is in trouble and unraveling before our eyes Jeffery, it's unconstitutional. Also it's probably written in a cut & paste fashion barely worthy of the fifth grade performance we been witnessing from the not ready for prime time solicitor general.
I must say this news warms the cockles of my heart.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
The resident legal eagles would know much better than I, but
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 5:34pm.
it seems to me the actual courtroom drama was more dog and pony show than anything likely to sway the justices. My understanding is that the much of the legal opinion on this case will be influenced by the amicus curiae and the many briefs filed leading up to the testimony. Additionally, the justices lived through the process that was intensely followed and scrutinized nationally whereas other cases are relatively obscure before several rounds of hearings finally result in a SCOTUS review. It's hard to imagine they didn't have some opinion before deciding to accept the case.
The 6 hours of testimony allotted for a law that so drastically tramples the intent of the framers and the Constitution they wrote always seemed ridiculously inadequate until I learned about the "friends of the court" angle; now it seems like they allowed the six hours to give each side to go on the record regarding the multiple elements of the case purely for future reference as opposed to entering into evidence issues and positions that might alter the eventual outcome.
I agree with Mark Levin: it's likely the lawyer wasn't so bad but the law he was tasked with defending. Liberals though, will need a scapegoat; looks like Mr. Verrilli will become persona non grata on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
I didn't listen to any of the
Submitted by JPTSO3 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 5:42pm.
I didn't listen to any of the argument. Did Elena Kegan at any point put her hand up and tell the rest of the Justices that she would be taking over oral argument before the ObamaMandate plane augured in?
VERRILLI HAS TO BE SUPER SMART
Submitted by squirefld on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 6:23pm.
Why is everyone hacking on this guy because of a few studders. His intelligence has to just as great as all the other Obama appointees.
Just like Obama being editor of the Harvard law newspaper, Verrilli was the editor of the Columbia University law newspaper. His intelligence level has to as great as Obama's.
You have seen that over the last few days.
I'll bet we could actually see something ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 7:19pm.
... that Donald Verrilli wrote for the Columbia Law Review, unlike the RBFSOB who has yet to produce a single sentence that he wrote at Harvard.
Besides, if Donald Verrilli looks like a fifth grader in his presentation, that puts him one grade level ahead of the reading level of Obama's speeches as judged by experts reading them.
It's not just a "plane wreck"
Submitted by Barabbus on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 6:34pm.
It's not just a "plane wreck" Jeff. It's more like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic kind of catastrophe. And despite what the now slack jawed media will claim, THIS WAS FORESEEABLE! Obvious to anyone with the intelligence of a number 2 pencil. They have wasted 3 and a half years. And we need to scream that fact into the faces of these liberal clowns. They truly are idiots. And they are prolific liars. All of them. Pelosi may have been on to something with her "are you serious?" remark though. Because these Justices sound like it's all they can do not to ask the same question themselves. Liars.
The word I heard from a local attorney/law school faculty is
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 6:59pm.
"amateur". He described Verrilli's inept handling of the questioning as being something he would use to flunk a freshman law student in first litigation training. I don't know much about litigation training for law students, but that can't be good.
Trial examination
Submitted by JPTSO3 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 8:28pm.
Once, I allowed an association to examine a witness, and he was flaming-out and auguring in. I asked the judge if I could "ask a few questions" (with the intent of taking over the questioning) and the judge said: "No, you put him up there, and he's going to finish". When I heard some of what the SG was saying in response to questions, I actually felt badly for him. He had no business there. Did he have a stroke? Because that is the only excuse I can see for that disaster.
Spectators
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 7:46pm.
I'm a big fan of Carolina basketball, and often I hear people yelling at the players for doing this and not doing that, missing an open pass, bricking a layup or foul shot. Geez, I think, why don't you put on your shiny blue underwear and play basketball against very good opponents in front of 28,000 screaming fans? No? Can't do it, can you, and you just want to piss and moan from the bleachers.
Same with the TV commentators. How well would you do if you had to argue a case in the Supreme Court? Not so great, eh?
Love of self with great hair and pancake makeup in TV studios. Pundolatry.
So how big WAS the rally?
Submitted by Slyrr on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 7:52pm.
I'm seeing on various websites that 'thousands' of people came to protest the health care takeover, demonstrating outside while the S. Court heard arguments from Obama's lawyer, and opposing lawyers.
From what I gather:
1) The protests weren't hugely big, otherwise conservative media would be showing wide angle shots of thronging crowds. If the protests were massive, we'd be seeing it.
2) The protests weren't 'small', otherwise the liberal media would be showing off the tiny crowds and mocking them. (We already know the libmedia is under orders to ignore the protests and make like they're not happening - hence the almost total media blackout except on conservative websites and maybe Fox News.)
3) Liberal protests in support of Obamacare are tiny, otherwise the liberal media would be showing them off and bragging about 'the will of the people'. They helped Cindy Sheehan make it look like her protests were 'huge', even though it was only 10-12 people squatting in a ditch. Which means even the lib media didn't think they could fool anyone by showing tiny support crowds and cropping the pictures to make them look bigger. Liberal blogs and websites have naturally been lying through their teeth, saying protests against Obamacare have been 'overwhelmed' by protests in favor.
4) Liberal protests in favor of Obamacare are weak, since there's been no video of angry battles between the two groups. SOMEONE is outnumbered.
OBE?
Submitted by CJohnson on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 12:25pm.
Yes, and that is quite a pile of media onlookers that were buried by the falling wreckage. Hey, isn't that Toobin's press pass smoldering over there in the wreckage?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 12:45pm.
One cannot defend the indefensible.