Donald Verrilli’s Obamacare suicide mission.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was sent to defend the indefensible before very smart people, like Justice Scalia and the eight other Supreme Court justices. Now Verrilli is going to be blamed for something that was a lost cause to begin with.

Listening to the the Supreme Court coverage of Obamacare for the last two days has been a pure joy for anyone who loves the constitution. The reason is simple: the Obamacare mandate is blatantly unconstitutional, and there’s nowhere to hem and haw and hide once you get to the Supreme Court. It’s one thing to yell and scream on cable news; it’s one things to play semantics in The New York Times or the Washington Post; and it’s another to stand before nine Supreme Court justices and have to be bring your A-game in front of the entire country. Word on the street is that U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wasn’t even fit for a high school debate club’s B-team. I disagree, because you can’t defend the indefensible. It didn’t matter what game he brought, because the Obama administration gave him an impossible task.

Here’s the analysis, from CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin:

“This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong. … I don’t know why he had a bad day … He is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not ready for the answers for the conservative justices.”

Really? He was fine on the first day? I suppose, if you consider getting laughed at by everyone in the room to be “fine.”

Here’s the deal: Verrilli has been asked to simultaneously define something as a “tax” and a “penalty.” The Obama administration asked him to twist into an intellectual pretzel to get this thing into the end zone, and that’s tough to do.

The Obama administration has to thread a difficult needle. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued [Monday] that the penalty for non-compliance with the mandate did not function as a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act [because the Fourth Circuit of Appeals ruled othewise]. [And Tuesday], he’ll have to argue that it does operate as a tax, and thus is a constitutional exercise of the congressional power to levy taxes.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli whether he could point to another case in which courts identified something as not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act while still ruling it was a constitutional exercise of taxing power. Verrilli could not name any.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was sent on a suicide mission, and he should be pissed off. The left will place the blame on his shoulder’s when the Supreme Court rules that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional. All they need to do to find the real culprit is to look into the mirror.

Justice Scalia is not a stupid man, and he’s not afraid to tell that to anyone who walks into the courtroom. After Justice Kagan had to spoon feed talking points to Verrilli to help him get through the ordeal, I would be shocked if the Court didn’t strike down the mandate.

Again, today was a beautiful day if you love the constitution.

Related: My response to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.

Gunter Glieben Glauchen…Kagan. Rock (of liberal?) Ages.

My drummer eventually lost his arm and we were still successful. Can your country thrive without sticking to The Constitution? Nope. And that would certainly not...rock.

I haven’t written a blog post in a few days, partially because I’ve been busy with work, but also because I really, really, really don’t care if Elena Kagan is gay. In fact, words don’t describe how much I really don’t care. However, I woke up this morning with the phrase: “Gunter glieben glauchen globen” in my head and immediately thought “Gunter glieben glauchen Kagan.”

For those unfamiliar with Def Leppard’s Rock of Ages, have a look back at one of producer Mutt Lange’s many accomplishments…

A quick glance at our friend wiki (great for pop culture, BAD for serious research) reveals that the band “jokingly claims it means ‘running through the forest silently.’” And, when applied to the lack of a significant paper trail, her secret centrist leanings, and the dearth of on-the-record musings on historical court cases…it’s a phrase I think fits her rather nicely.

While I don’t care who she sleeps with in her off hours, I do care about the Rock (of liberal) Ages we’ll have to put up with if we allow people who believe The Constitution is a “living document” to pack the Court. While times change, principles don’t. The Constitution is fairly straight forward about what the government’s proper role is, and what its limitations are—and even when it’s not we can know the principles The Founding Fathers intended, which can be applied to modern situations. Moral Relativists who essentially think the words in The Constitution mean “whatever we want them to mean” are flat wrong. I’ve talked about Supreme Court Justices who find penumbras in emanations in the past, so I’ll refrain from doing so again. The point is, let’s concentrate on the damage someone’s warped view of The Constitution can do to the country instead of who they may or not make out with.

Right now you either think I’m pretty fly for a white guy… or a nerd. Maybe a little of both? Perhaps.

Rock of (liberal) Ages? If you keep sticking to side-show distractions over what softball pictures say about one's sexuality, yes.