The article from Reuters (by Joan Biskupik) begins this way:
The U.S. Supreme Court case that
could shatter President Barack Obama’s healthcare law this year was launched as
a backup plan by a libertarian group and a powerful Washington lawyer
frustrated by the slow progress of their original lawsuit.
Their success in persuading the court to take the ideologically driven case owes to a combination of canny legal tactics and the willingness of at least four justices to hear it in unusually swift time. Oral arguments are set for March 4.
Their success in persuading the court to take the ideologically driven case owes to a combination of canny legal tactics and the willingness of at least four justices to hear it in unusually swift time. Oral arguments are set for March 4.
 |
| Michael Carvin |
The
reasoning behind the case, if I may be so bold, has been this: We hate this guy so much, if we
can cripple his signature program, even on a technicality – oh, especially on a
technicality! – oh joy, oh joy, oh fiendish joy.
It doesn’t matter how many people it hurts. We don’t know any of them people anyway.
“We”
includes Michael Carvin, who represented George
W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election dispute in Florida and the
Competitive Enterprise Institute’s general counsel Sam Kazman, neither of whom has
ever met either a person of color he could truly relate to or a poor person he respected.
For the original article, click here.
. . . At “The Ambiguities,” a theory of nearly everything . . . or
next to nothing at
all. Click here to see how this fits in.
all. Click here to see how this fits in.
No comments:
Post a Comment