joshsternberg:

thenewrepublic:

Could one simple argument have saved Obamacare? Jeffrey Rosen and Jonathan Cohn discuss the Supreme Court case.

“In the oral arguments over the constitutionality of health care reform, John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy seemed at times to be looking for a reason to uphold the law despite their doubts. Unfortunately, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli didn’t give it to them.”

-Jeffrey Rosen, One Simple Argument Could Have Saved Obamacare. Too Bad Verilli Didn’t Make It.

But don’t the Justices (or at least their clerks) get amicus briefs and read op-eds? Surely the nine most powerful people in the nation don’t make their decisions solely based on in-court arguments. Or do they?

Yes. Oral arguments mean almost nothing.

1. i3ou reblogged this from brooklynmutt
2. anewdawnanewdayanewlife likes this
3. withlovebribri likes this
4. herblondness likes this
5. eggznrice reblogged this from brooklynmutt
6. bomble reblogged this from thenewrepublic and added:

   Disagree. You mean...tell me if they were “looking...they...

7. girlboss likes this
8. tragos likes this
9. thedorseyshawexperience likes this
10. biteofpythias reblogged this from brooklynmutt and added:

    surprised so many smart writers, even legal ones, don’t seem to comprehend how the court works. it doesn’t all have to...

11. thesemicullen likes this
12. crustinnipersonal likes this
13. sweetcobra reblogged this from brooklynmutt
14. jasencomstock reblogged this from joshsternberg and added:

    Yes. Oral arguments mean almost nothing.

15. inothernews likes this
16. joshsternberg reblogged this from thenewrepublic and added:

    But don’t the Justices (or at least their clerks) get amicus briefs and read op-eds? Surely the nine most powerful...

17. hughbot likes this
18. kaiabelinda likes this
19. section9 likes this
20. lpoi likes this
21. animalinmymind likes this
22. body-peace-project reblogged this from brooklynmutt
23. brooklynmutt reblogged this from thenewrepublic
24. thenewrepublic posted this