Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



The ABA Journal's historical revisionism

| No Comments

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had a tough round of questioning when he argued for the government defending PPACA in the healthcare litigation, and liberals were infuriated that the case turned out not to be the slam-dunk the Obama administration said it was, and made Verrilli a scapegoat for the administration's indefensible litigation position. Adam Serwer at the left-wing Mother Jones called his argument "one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court." Liberal law professor Barry Friedman told the New York Times that Verrilli's performance was "disappointing." Liberal Jeffrey Toobin called it a train wreck on CNN and was otherwise harsh in a Politico story.

In contrast, conservatives were sympathetic to Verrilli. Miguel Estrada in the same NY Times story said that the criticism of Verrilli was "uninformed and unjustified." I defended Verrilli on Twitter.

Somehow, however, when the ABA Journal does a profile of Donald Verrilli, here's how they characterized the kerfuffle over the March oral argument:

It's customary for the solicitor general to show up on opinion days, and Verrilli appeared perfectly upbeat despite all the attention in March to what some perceived as his subpar performance arguing the Affordable Care Act cases. (Some of the criticism was ideologically motivated by critics of the health care law.)

What media bias?

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:




Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.