The press has been incredibly harsh on Solicitor General Verrilli, and it seems that he is being setup as the fall guy. I have listened to his Tuesday argument and I don't think he was that bad. Here is a direct link. He does clear his throat as he begins but that does not mean that he choked.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Michael, I totally agree. The antagonists do like to disparage the Solicitor General's performance, but then should we expect otherwise? If he wore a wild tie, it would be said to be a distraction! He made his case; so what if he had a nerve attack and stumbled a bit at the beginning. Cant say as I blame him, considering the weight he must have felt on his shoulders. I don't think courtroom speaking aberations have an iota of impact on the success or failure of the arguments presented. The justices seemed to me to have pretty well thought out their lines of questioning beforehand (save the silent one-- who knows what he has on his mind during argument). Preconceived notions couldn't have been more apparent, and probably were unchangeable, irregardless of the Solicitor's commentary.
ReplyDeleteVerrilli had to target Justice Kennedy, who wanted limits on Federal regulation of interstate commerce. Verrilli tried to make the case that the insurance mandate only affected the method of payment for commerce that already existed, and it did not create new commerce which supposedly could lead to mandatory consumption of Broccoli. The liberal Justices, Breyer in particular, felt that the rationality of Congress was enough of a limit and tried to help Verrilli. Had Verrilli taken an approach more to the liking of the liberals he probably would have had no chance to win over Kennedy.
ReplyDeleteThe press focussed the style instead of the logic of the argument. They saw Verrilli being pummeled by the Justices and saw him as incompetent. It is a good thing that the Supreme Court released the audio so the public would not need to depend on the press to find out what really happened.