How Verrilli may have won over Roberts

[Onlooker]

Source: MSNBC

After the Supreme Court’s second day of oral arguments, back on March 27, there was a sense that the justices were not sold on the health care law.

“I think it’s very doubtful that court is going to find the health care law constitutional,” NBC’s Pete Williams said at the time. “I don’t see five votes to find the law constitutional.”

And with good reason. The justices were very skeptical of the thrust of the government’s case -- that the mandate was justified under the so-called “commerce clause” of the Constitution and the government’s right to regulate markets. It was clear Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually a swing vote, were skeptical of the “commerce clause” argument, especially how it could be limited to the health care market. And star conservative lawyer Paul Clement, who argued for the states that filed suit against the law, focused his case on it.

The rough day in court for the government led some to criticize the government’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. The Republican National Committee went so far as to mock Verrilli with this video, focusing on style -- a pause and stammer.

Read more: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/29/12481922-how-verrilli-may-have-won-over-roberts?lite

---

Verrilli was strongly criticized for his performance, yet as you'll see in this article, in his exchanges with Scalia, Roberts, and Kagan, he was effective in arguing that healthcare reform should survive as a tax.

[dipsydoodle]

1. I wonder if Roberts responded with

Verrilli I say unto you..............

[OKNancy]

2. LOL

[oldhippydude]

3. a case of.....

swift justice

[MADem]

6. +1!!! nt

[Honeycombe8]

8. Clever! nt

[ashling]

12. That reminds me of a concise ruling:

Defendant: As God is my judge, I do not owe this tax

Judge's ruling: She's not, I am, you do.

[Dustlawyer]

4. I think it was more of Roberts looking at his legacy and the direction that an OPENLY partisan

court was going in the public and legal communities esteem. The real question will be if he starts to attempt to reign in his fellow right wingers. There has been a lot of talk in the legal community from both sides that this is wrong. Scalia, Alito and Scalia's drone, Clarence " the I'm not asking questions so as to hide how stupid I am" Thomas have debased the SCOTUS so low that Roberts may actually be embarrassed. After all, it is called " The Roberts Court" because he is the presiding Chief Justice.

[MADem]

5. The Lesson: When the RNC mocks you, you win! nt

[BeyondGeography]

7. It shows mostly how the Norquistian reality of our politics has made us a backwards nation

It was branded a penalty to avoid the dreaded "t" word, and there are sound arguments for it to be labelled a penalty anyway. This was a simple political matter that was conflated into a legal issue. The Court did nothing more in the end than clarify political posturing, and only narrowly avoided torpedoing a two-year piece of democratically sanctioned legislation on a linguistic technicality. How telling of our inability to move forward on anything that really matters, i.e. health care, that it came to this.

[ashling]

13. They live in a world in which

closing tax loopholes is viewed as a tax increase.

[Old Codger]

9. My take on this

I am not sure he was in any way convinced, I think he may have been the only right winger to see the ramifications of getting rid of the ACA, in the upcoming election I see a strong possibility of the dems taking control of both houses with a large enough majority to run it as they please. If that were to happen, and the ACA had been taken down they would have the power to redo the whole thing into a real health care law that would in fact benefit the people much more than the existing law. The insurance companies would lose a lot and the people would gain a lot so he decided that this was better than that and went with it.... They may end up doing that anyway but having it left intact gives the less incentive to do so and the voters will be somewhat lulled into a sense of "all is well" and not be quite as likely to be mad enough to vote that way in Nov.

[JohninPA]

10. Another view

My wife is an account manager for a large not for profit health insurance company and I am what is know as an insurance producer. We will both be losing our jobs and ironically our health care as a result of the ACa and this ruling.

Other than a few large for profit carriers, all carriers I work with are laying people off in preparation for the mandates. Also, the near term effect of the act is an across the board increase of 6% to group health premiums. This is in addition to the normal medical trend and demographic/experience rating changes a group will experience. I firmly believe that this act will destroy private insurance companies and force single payer.

[Onlooker]

11. Hope it works out for you

If it leads to single payer, that will be great. It also seems to me as our society transitions to a new model of healthcare, there will be many new jobs created to manage that transition and new industries will be borne to take advantage of various aspects of Obamacare. I hope the skills and experience that you and your wife have make you valuable resources under the new healthcare model, and that you find good jobs.

[DallasNE]

14. I Don't Understand

How or why a 6% rate increase above trend lines is in the works. The law mandates that 85% of premiums be paid out in benefits and rebates must be paid when that is not the case. Already this year some insurance companies are paying rebates under current structure. Is this some kind of scare talk being floated about?

Plus, I already thought that a few large for profit carriers dominated the market. Why would they not simply buy out the remaining competition. Unfortunately, that does mean that some people would lose their jobs.

[JohninPA]

18. Not a scare tactic, just my local experience.

The ACA provides "free" expanded benefits. Some of the big ones are no cost (deductible or copay) preventive medicine, and child immunization. These are good things, but the cost of providing these services if most definitely not zero in the eyes of health insurance actuaries. Also, the dependent coverage to age 26 is seen as a cases of adverse selection. Basically only the young people who need care will enroll on their parent's plans due to the extra cost. Again, not my opinion but actuarial analysis by the major health carriers in my area. No scare tactics, just facts. I manage health insurance for a little over 100 small companies and I see this every day when working on their health insurance renewals.

[The Jungle 1]

15. two things

Solid argument and Verrilli knew it.

Did Obama know it from the start?
Was it all a dodge.
Anybody that underestimates Obama is really screwing up.
There have been way to many gotcha moments with our brilliant president.
Man he is good!

[bucolic_frolic]

16. Yes, yes, yes, and YES

Obama is ridiculed by the GOP as weak and wishy-washy, but again and again
he has done his homework and has some nuance up his sleeve. Clinton was deft,
Obama is brilliant and astute.

Obama is one to stay above the fray, to let his opponents have their day, talk
themselves out, shoot their load, create media drama ... but at the end of the day
he swaggers into the room and has the voice of authority.

I believe this election will be won or lost on Obama's sense of self, his great mind,
macho charisma, legal debating skills, and policies. He has his finger or staff on
every issue, there are few surprises to him, and as was proven in 2008, against
Hillary and McCain, he is a FANTASTIC Campaigner, probably the best since FDR.

Obama rocks. America will realize it. Hope that someday is this year.

[truthisfreedom]

17. way too, post 26! Welcome to DU!