SCOTUS: Arizona Immigration Law

It won't be a setback because of "outrage". It will be a setback because it will be a setback.

The Solicitor General argued the case terribly. If they lose, it will reflect poorly on him, and on the person who appointed him.

 

All were professors at the University of Chicago, "where fun goes to die."

Also would have accepted: "They all like pussy."

Supposedly Scalia has complained because there is a picture of Obama hanging up there and a plaque commemorating his tenure, but not anything for Tony.

 

That's so Scalia.

He's not gonna age well, that one.

 

No, it really won't be a setback for the White House. People who support the law are pretty universally anti-Obama anyway, and those who oppose the law will be disappointed if it goes into effect, but will be glad the administration at least chose to fight it.

To suggest a solicitor general arguing poorly in a case will be a setback for Obama because it reflects poorly on his judgment is a Plasticman-level reach.

 

And, who installed the espresso machine at the University of Chicago Law School? That's right, this guy!

Scalia & Kagen should be honored/recognized. They're both brilliant.

I like Tony's arrogance. It's well earned.

 

You don't bring a case challenging a law unless you're going to win.

And, if they lose, it looks like it will be because their argument sucked. If they knew their argument sucked, why bring the case? It's a waste of time and money, and it's an embarrassment.

And, they didn't even challenge the law on the basis of what most offended people. They didn't even try to make the case that the law was racist.

 

The argument was just fine in the lower courts, which agreed with the federal government and struck down the law. Arizona appealed to bring it to the Supreme Court.

 

OK, so why did it come across so poorly today? Justice Sotomayor was reduced to coaching the poor Solicitor General.

Based on that, I'd say it wasn't because of the ideological bent of the SCOTUS. Maybe the lower court had ideological sympathies, and ruled for the administration based on them.

But, if you want to play on the highest court in the land, you better be able to hit a curve ball.

They looked lost.

 

This would certainly make the courts more efficient.

No cases, and definitely no appeals, unless they're guaranteed winners!

 

Am I wrong?

It's an insult to the Court to bring a frivolous case. If this is the best they've got, it was frivolous.

 

Don't know. From all I heard, the Solicitor General argued it poorly. Maybe the case was flawed in a way that didn't bother the lower courts; maybe the Solicitor General just fucked it up on the big stage.

I could try to twist it a million ways to try to make a political statement, but I find that kind of silly.

 

Yes, you're wrong. It was not a frivolous case; the federal government won the case in the lower courts.