Welcome back to Balladeer’s Blog, the only Independent Voter site on the internet that is truly non-partisan in its criticism of the shrill children called Liberals and Conservatives.

Both sides of the American political spectrum have hilariously overreacted to the inept presentation made before the Supreme Court by Obama’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Verrilli’s role in such a hearing is to provide some justification regarding the constitutionality of Obamacare but he sounded like a poorly-prepared 12 year old reading his book report to the class. 

Liberal pundits have been uproariously downbeat about Verrilli’s universally panned performance and Conservative pundits have been just as uproariously upbeat about it. They all feel that his poor presentation may have doomed Obamacare, with each side elated or despairing over that perception.

 For a quick example from both sides, Liberal propoganda publication Mother Jones fretted that Verrilli’s inept performance could well “serve as the epitaph” for Obamacare while Conservative propoganda broadcaster Michael Medved was positively jubilant over the criticism of Verrilli’s  arguments, calling it ” a positive sign for Obamacare being struck down.” This establishes how little they all know about how the United States Supreme Court functions.

In reality, the arguments made in person before the Court are just barely more than a formality. This is not a conventional courtroom case where jurors, or in this case, the Justices “decide who has the better lawyer” as the old joke goes. The Supreme Court issues rulings that become the law of the land, they don’t hear individual cases where a slick lawyer can schmooze their way to success. That means THEY ARE NOT LIMITED BY WHAT WAS SAID OR PRESENTED DURING THE ARGUMENTS IN COURT  WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR  RULINGS!

The Supreme Court Justices will personally become the advocates for or against Obamacare. They will cite precedents from other cases, they will have access to Amicus Briefs filed by outside parties on both sides of the issue, and they will use highly detailed legal memos to each other to try to persuade their colleagues to strike down or uphold Obamacare. (They may even strike down some parts and uphold others, as they often do with complicated legislation, and this may be just the first of many cases involving Obamacare that the Justices wind up hearing.)

Lionel Hutz could have been the Solicitor General and his presentation would still not have “doomed Obamacare.” Whatever legal arguments among the nine Justices win at least five votes will be what either dooms or prolongs Obamacare. Read as much Supreme Court history as you like and you’ll  encounter these facts over and over. Oral presentations attract a lot of attention but are just dog and pony shows. Some Justices of the past have even indicated they enjoy toying a little with the lawyers arguing cases before them by nailing them for artless statements or shabbily-constructed positions but the court’s rulings are not  based on those antics.

Michael Medved seemed to think it was a “terrible sign” for Obamacare’s chances that some of the Liberal Justices made stronger arguments in support of Obamacare than Verrilli was capable of conjuring up. Wrong, Michael. All it did was provide a public preview of the type of arguments  those Justices will be using with their colleagues behind closed doors. 

As funny as Medved’s optimism was, the despairing attitude of people like the writers at Mother Jones was even funnier. That’s because Liberal Pundits like to pretend they are the country’s official “intellectuals” in the same way that Conservative pundits like to pretend they are the country’s official “patriots.” The fact that Liberal pundits are so clueless about their own country’s Supreme Court is hilarious, but typical. Liberal pundits are usually every bit as uninformed as Conservative pundits but are much more pretentious. 

I still remember when network commentators in 1992 were fretting over Ross Perot’s candidacy and were saying that if he won enough votes in the Electoral College to send the election to the House of Representatives it would be the first time in history that it happened. Wrong! It happened a few times in the early years of the republic and the country survived it just fine. American pundits from both sides are very ignorant of history but it never stops them from putting on ridiculous airs. 


© Edward Wozniak and Balladeer’s Blog, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Edward Wozniak and Balladeer’s Blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.        




  1. 2 cool! Luv the way u go after both liberals and conservatives since they all suck!

  2. Thanks for always being a nice change from other sites that are stupidly liberal or conservative. It’s interesting to know that about the Supreme Court. You would think reporters would do a little research.

  3. Hi. You are so interesting! You always take the unexpected approach to these issues. Personally I don’t know anyone who will benefit from Obamacare so I hope it gets thrown out.

    • I don’t know anyone who will benefit from it from all I’ve read about it. Not even my sister’s situation will be better under this pathetic piece of legislation.

  4. I had no idea the Supreme Court operated that way. Are you sure?

    • Absolutely sure. Read any non-fiction book about their procedures. They are not limited to consider only legal issues raised during the oral arguments. They are able to use any legal arguments in their deliberations that they and/or their law clerks dig up.

  5. Perfectly described! Liberals are even worse than conservative kooks because liberals think they are so intelligent but they’re really just pretentious.

  6. A blog like this is long overdue! Everyone is so sick of liberals being pretentious assholes and conservatives being flagwaving churchies.

  7. Pingback: Lenny J

    • Thanks! I often say I wish American liberals and conservatives could all just go live on an island somewhere and let the rest of us adults alone to run things without their pointlessly partisan b.s.

  8. Jerseytime

    Excellent comments! I find media coverage of legal proceedings to lack depth on both the practical and the technical aspects of law, lawyering and the courts. Despite the obvious need to have someone who knows the sytem to cover legal issues properly, the media seems to either assign reporters who don’t know the system, or who have legal degrees they’ve never really used.
    So, few “get” what you posted. Many (all?) of the Justices already had a pretty good idea of how they would rule before they even recieved the briefs.
    Nevermind that (as you’ve said in other posts) that SCOTUS decisions are often politically motivated, with the written decisions citing cases/statutes molded to support the decision, not the other way around.

    • I know exactly what you mean. The people who are supposed to be on top of these procedures and making them clear to the rest of us are actually clueless about them.

  9. You were certainly right about the Obamacare decision having nothing to do with what went on in court back on this day!

  10. Its like living in a dictatorship under the Supreme Court.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s