Don’t blame Verrilli
Remember the SCOTUS hearings on Obamacare? The Obama administration’s Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, was widely seen as incompetent in his defense of the statute’s constitutionality.
Now he’s arguing for the administration in the Arizona immigration law case, and it’s not going well again—if fact, even liberal (and self-described “wise latina”) justice Sonia Sotomayer had this to say to him at one important point, “I’m terribly confused by your answer.” And Drudge’s headline says, “Obama’s lawyer chokes again.”
I beg to differ. I think Verrilli’s problem is a different one: how can you argue a really, really, really bad case? There’s a limit to what sophistry and rhetoric can do, and I think he knows it.
The fact that he knows it gives Verrilli’s arguments even less coherence and punch, but the problem is not really with him, it’s with the arguments themselves. For example, in the present case, the government’s position is this convoluted mess:
The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.
“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.
How can one not reasonably come to the conclusion that, “the state appears to want to push federal officials [to enforce its own policies], not conflict with them”? Don’t blame Verrilli if he’s unable to convince the Court otherwise.
And oh, his opponent is, once again, Paul Clement. Clement is a stellar advocate—but it helps to have something sensible to advocate.
When a good lawyer does his or her best with a weak argument it is usual for the client to blame the attorney for the bad result rather than reflect on the stupidity of the position. This is more often the case when the client is a politician.
I think one advantage “wise latina” and Kagan have is that ehy will argue whatever needs to be argued for the cause without embarrasment.
I think it was Stevens who wrote the minority opinion in the 2nd Amendment Heller decision, and I think it was a rather intelligent argument anchored in garbage.
We are dealing with people who are still supporting Democrats after over 1,000 days with no budget and $1.5T deficits and a $16T debt and the immense idiocy of Obamacare, yet they will still vote for Obama, and certainly not for Mitt. As you know, it takes a lot to change a mind, and it seems logic and facts only play a small part in what people believe.
Richard Pryor routine about a lawyer arguing for a dubious client:
==
“Your Honor, this man is not a heroin dealer per se, he’s being manipulated by these people. He was merely trying to get enough moneys together to help his dear mom, she had a spinal condition. She needed an operation. And he didn’t have the funds to do this your honor. And he was merely trying to raise the money and he tried every odd job he could and he could not raise the moneys.
When the officers caught him with the two hundred and eighty kilos he was trying to purchase a hospital in the Bahamas…
===
If you have to lie, it means you’ve considered telling the truth and decided it won’t get you where you want to go.
The lie here is that these arguments are supposed to be the reason behind the government’s position. Since they make no logical or factual sense, are self-impeachng, it
means the real reason does not stand up to public awareness. If it did, they’d use it.
IOW, they want to get something over on us they know we’d resist.
All SG Verrilli can do in situations were he has not much of a case is to pound on the table.
“Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.”
The Obama DOJ is a farce. By this ‘logic’ the FBI has the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible kidnappings. Poor Verrilli is fishing without bait.
The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
Rephrased:
The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to enforce the law is is mandated to enforce.
I used preview, but didn’t read carefully enough.
Rephrased:
The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to enforce the law it is mandated to enforce.
Can we feel the wheels falling off the Obama administration? Losing this, losing Obamacare, will not help when piled on top of a horrible economy, and a terrible foreign policy. Here’s hoping.
A winning argument:
Verrilli’s problem with defending Democrat positions is simple: he can’t yell “Racism!”