Wow. The oral argument defense of Obamacare’s constitutionality so far has not just been bad, as has been reported, but has been stunningly bad. And the incompetence displayed goes beyond that of Solicitor General Verrilli, but extends to several of the meaning-to-help-his-case comments by some of the liberal Supreme Court Justices themselves. It is a before-your-eyes meltdown of the liberal legal establishment reputation’s for intellectual rigor.
I don’t have time presently to go into the p’s and q’s of it, but Pundit and Pundette gives you a good collection of observations (link onward to David Bernstein’s thoughts), and don’t miss Ammon Simon’s great post at Bench Memos. I link to specific posts, but go to the home pages of these sites for lots more on this.
Read the quotes these bloggers have collected. There’s some truly stunning ignorance on display here if you know even a little con-law. I taught it last semester, and some of the errors and mistakes are serious enough to keep an otherwise excellent paper from getting an A, for undergraduates!
UPDATE: Pete has similar thoughts, ones a bit more focused on liberal pundit-dom, over at No Left Turns .
