Supreme Court

Are Liberals Still Mad at Donald Verrilli for the Health Care Arguments?

|

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli did not earn high marks from most liberal commentators in the aftermath of the Supreme Court oral arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For example, Adam Serwer of the left-leaning magazine Mother Jones complained that Verrilli's "defense of Obamacare…may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court." Meanwhile, liberal Yale professor Akhil Reed Amar, writing at Slate, penned a condescending open letter to the justices where he explained what Verrilli "should have said."

Are liberals still angry at the solicitor general for dropping the ball? The New York Times' Adam Liptak reports that the answer is yes, at least when it comes to liberal legal academics. Liptak notes that while members of the Supreme Court bar have largely rallied to Verrilli's defense, liberal law professors continue to rage against the solicitor general:

The view from the legal academy is different.

"The solicitor general's performance in the health care case was totally disappointing," said Barry Friedman, a law professor at New York University who filed a brief urging the justices to uphold the law. "His answers were wholly inadequate."

"You really needed gravitas," Professor Friedman said. "But what he conveyed to the court was that the administration was uncomfortable with its own position."

For more on the liberal response to the health care arguemnts, see Peter Suderman's "The Liberal Legal Bubble." For my report on the oral argument over the individual mandate, see here.

NEXT: Arizona Voters Can Wear Their Politics On Their Sleeves (Or Anywhere Else)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “His answers were wholly inadequate.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Maybe that’s because he has no leg to stand on? Fucking idiots.

    1. No Epi, the ideology is never wrong. So it had to be him who was at fault.

      Sorry dude, the party demands that you admit your culpability.

    2. maybe he stood on brocolli

  2. It’s probably best not to start gloating until after the court renders its decision.

    1. Yep. The football is teed up. But Lucy is holding it.

      1. To be fair, Charlie Brown did kick it once.

        1. He did? I missed that.

          1. Wasn’t he invisible that time?

              1. invisible? Good grief.

    2. will Verrilli be forgiven then?

      1. He’ll be a saint.

  3. Maybe the Solicitor General would have gotten a better response if he had responded to all of the Justice’s questions by scoffing dismissively and saying “are you serious?”

    1. ^THIS^

  4. well, of course, it’s Verrilli’s fault. Shooting the messenger never gets old.

  5. our resident legal experts could have done a better job representing the government. Is that a backhanded compliment or what?

  6. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli did not earn high marks from most liberal commentators…

    I was under the impression it was not the fault of a crappy lawyer, but rather the insidious conservative partisan activism of the Justices in acting against the Will of the People as part of their perpetual efforts to reward their evil corporate paymasters… or something like that. Like, “the lawyer did just fine”, but Teh Justices had epic logic-fail for not admitting “the obvious”… for the law was “obviously”” constitutional and everybody knows it I mean you have to buy car insurance Duhhhh its the same thing Clearly this was the Koch brothers again.

    1. As President Obama said, how dare the Supreme Court even _think_ about making the UNPRECEDENTED (frequent) move of overturning legislation passed by a STRONG MAJORITY (50.08%) of the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED (gerrymandered) congress.

  7. “You really needed gravitas,” Professor Friedman said. “But what he conveyed to the court was that the administration was uncomfortable with its own position.”

    It’s called having an ounce of integrity.

  8. Want to know why our healthcare costs are going to bankrupt us?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47…..nutrition/

    FORTY TWO percent of the population will be obese by 2030. Not overweight–OBESE.

    1. well, get off your ass and get them in concentrationexercise camps.

      1. So they can work up an appetite?!

    2. Yeah because trends are never self correcting. Nope. All trends extend at their current rate to infinity. That explains why two out of every three mothers is currently on crack.

      1. And why the average temperature of the Earth is 50?C.

      2. It’s now been going on 40 years of people getting fatter and fatter. And nothing is stopping it.

        1. So you really think everyone in America will some day look like Rosanne Bar? I seriously doubt it. At some point people will get tired of being fat and stop doing it. Like all trends, it will level out on its own.

          1. Dudes, it’s an extremely obvious sockpuppet. Probably one of Mary’s. Come on. Just walk away.

            1. I did not notice this until it was too late. Avoid my mistake other H&R humans! And the anon bot too I guess.

            2. Just wait until the average american weighs 40,000 lbs. The trend line predicts it and it will be something to behold!

          2. So you really think everyone in America will some day look like Rosanne Bar?

            John, go back and watch TV shows or movies from the 60s and 70s. The average American today would be fucking cows compared to them. Our standards have already been inflated.

          3. And this has happened with Native American tribes and Samoans. There are tribes where the average woman is 100 pounds overweight. There’s no reason it couldn’t happen to the general population. That’s what happens when you have a Carls Jr. on every corner and are 100% automobile dependent.

            1. I never knew Carl’s Jr was so big in Samoa.

              1. It’s the Paris Hilton ads. They can’t help it.

            2. And this has happened with Native American tribes and Samoans. There are tribes where the average woman is 100 pounds overweight. There’s no reason it couldn’t happen to the general population. That’s what happens when you have a Carls Jr. on every corner and are 100% automobile dependent.

              Despite being slender before the Civil War, the Pima Indians were obese 50 years later. I guarantee you those newly-destitute people gained neither automobiles nor Carl’s Jr. restaurants in that time.

            3. HAhahaha. Samoa. Dude. Polynesians heart corpulence not because of consumerism, trans-fats, fast food, nor HCFS. To them corpulence is success – you managed to get fat while everyone else was starving so you have to be doing something right. Now, I’m not saying they’re right, I’m only saying you’re wrong.

        2. It would be interesting to line up the percentage of obese Americans and how many of the obese receive some sort of government food “benefits”.

          1. You can be malnourished and obese at the same time. But you have a point–Kentucky allows food stamps to be used at fast food restaurants FFS (thanks to Yum! Brands lobbying).

            1. Hmm. Since money and power will always find eachother, instead of blaming Yum! Brands for doing what is obviously in their best interest, perhaps we should take away the tool they seek to use, namely, food stamps.

              Nah, that can’t possibly be the solution.

              1. Actually, they should be arrested for inventing that damn Doritos shell taco. That thing is an offense unto nature.

            2. Yum Foods’ execs apparently did right by the shareholders whose interests they represent. Maybe KY voters should fire their Congressmen and replace them with former fast food execs.

        3. It’s now been going on 40 years of people getting fatter and fatter. And nothing is stopping it.

          Low-fat dieting and exercising two hours a day I got so heavy I folded a 26″ bicycle wheel riding a bike down my driveway. Then in 2004 I lost 125 lbs in 8 months by cutting carbs and eating lots of fat instead. Kept it off, too. Still I’m told it doesn’t work.

          1. Good for you. I agree carbs are the problem, especially sugar.

            Tax the shit out of HFCS and sugary foods. Advertising junk food to children should be banned and ID required to purchase coca cola.

            Carbs are bad, and sugar is a poison.

            1. Tax the shit out of HFCS and sugary foods. Advertising junk food to children should be banned and ID required to purchase coca cola.

              OK, now I know you’re just a troll. No rational person with any value of their self would advocate taxing the shit out of anything they can decide whether or not to buy themselves.

              But you’re not rational if you are who I think you are.

              1. Google Robert Lustig. He advocates just that as do many other serious public health advocates.

                1. And those taxes would be collected under threat of violence, right, Thug?

            2. Tax the shit out of HFCS and sugary foods. Advertising junk food to children should be banned and ID required to purchase coca cola.

              How about we try getting the right information out there first instead of social engineering with tax policy and ID requirements? Sticking a gun in someone’s face should be the last resort, not the first one.

              1. Social engineering worked very well in getting people to quit smoking. Smoking went from sexy and glamorous to the domain of old people, eurofreaks, and white trash within a generation.

                1. Those same eurofreaks you want us to emulate, right Dick? Of course, why should they care? I think the EU outlawed cancer, so they can’t catch it anyway.

                2. Nope, it couldn’t be that people, as individual, rational actors, decided they didn’t like the negative health effects of smoking, like COPD and chronic bronchitis. Nope…they were sheep and could only be influenced by a government-funded confidence game.

                  Once again, you expose your thug philosophy, Richard.

            3. More than 15 minutes in and still no response to “George Ought to Help”.

              How’s it living the Thug Life, Richard?

            4. Holy fuck! With more and more nanny statist fucks like this cropping up, I might actually live to see the day when sugar is sold in the black market. I don’t even want to imagine the blood bath that that is going to generate.

              1. First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get … the women!

                1. First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get … the women!

                  Don’t you need to get the khakis before you get the women?

            5. Carbs are bad, and sugar is a poison.

              Apparently, your brain didn’t get that memo, because it needs a constant supply of that poison to function properly.

      3. Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue… Ayyy!

        1. Only someone extremely uneducated would compare musical tastes to a medical crisis.

    3. And this will bankrupt us why?

      Ooooooh yeah, some dumb fucks believe it’s everybody’s responsibility to pay for a person’s medical bills.

      1. So when someone is bleeding to death outside the emergency room, he shouldn’t get care if his credit card isn’t approved?

        1. So you’re saying doctors are obligated to help anyone that ends up on their doorstep without any kind of repayment for their services? Or are you saying it’s my responsibility to pay for the bleeding person if they can’t? Did I have anything to do with the reason they’re bleeding?

          1. Should they die if they can’t pay for treatment?

            1. Only if a doctor is not willing to help them for free.

            2. Should doctors go to jail if they don’t treat every single person who demands free care?

              1. Yes, not treating someone who is dying because they don’t have money is morally equivalent to murder.

                1. Steeeeeeeeee-rike two!

                2. Here’s to hoping nobody shows up on your doorstep bleeding to death. It would suck for you to be locked up for murder because you couldn’t save him.

                3. Richard_KY = MNG?

            3. “Should they die if they can’t pay for treatment?”

              I got this one, kids.

              Yes. They should man-up and die. That’s what I plan to do. Why? Because I am not a fucking self-important leech.

        2. I’m fine with a hospital that takes that approach. Alternatively, you could pony up to a charity that pays for indigent medical care. I hear such things exist.

          1. Ah yes, the magical Charity Fairy is going to pick up that $500,000 tab.

            1. Ah yes, the magical Charity Fairy is going to pick up that $500,000 tab.

              Around half the hospitals in this country are charities. I would guess that, outside of the smallest ones, any hospital administrator at a charity hospital could take you, on any given day, to at least one patient that the hospital was going to eat a half million bucks on.

              And could give you as many examples as you would like of such patients over the last few years.

              1. Which is why nobody ever goes bankrupt for medical bills. The Charity Fairy is there!

                1. So you’re saying that if I am unfortunate enough to incur sizable medical bills which are extremely difficult to pay off with my savings or income, the courts will help me by eliminating the liability along with other debts I might have?

                  That sounds like a system that just might work.

                  1. You know that just drives up medical costs and insurance premiums even more, every time the bill is just written off, right?

                    1. “You know that just drives up medical costs and insurance premiums even more, every time the bill is just written off, right?”

                      Wrong. What drives up medical costs is greedy, self-important, freeloading patients and their idiot “DON’T UNPLUG GRADMA VEG” relatives.

                    2. GRANDMA

          2. So, you’re saying those without medical insurance or ability to pay should die?

            1. So, you’re saying that nobody should ever die?

              1. Are YOU saying that someone who is in a horrible accident should bleed to death on the curb because he doesn’t have enough money?

                1. Assuming there is nobody around willing to help him for free, then yeah I guess so. I know it sucks that people are such assholes they would never help a person in need out of the kindness of their hearts. It’s a good thing we have an all powerful government to make us treat each other well.

                  1. Ignore. The. Sockpuppet. Seriously.

                  2. Assuming there is nobody around willing to help him for free, then yeah I guess so.

                    Goddamn sociopath.

                    1. Goddamn sociopath.

                      Thanks.*sniff*That means a lot to me.*sniff*

                    2. How is he a sociopath? He wasn’t the one there choosing not to help the guy.

                2. Yes, they should die.

              2. If we could legislate immortality, all our medical problems would be solved.

                1. Man, there’s that rank-ass smell of rancid pussy again. I smelled it in another thread, too.

                  Smells like a liberal.

            2. “So, you’re saying those without medical insurance or ability to pay should die?”

              Yes, they should die.

          3. Probably not for long if PPACA stands.

          4. That’s why nobody ever goes bankrupt for medical bills. The Charity Fairy cures all.

              1. Or maybe they’ll just spend it on blow, hookers, and another yacht.

                Clap harder! The Charity Fairy will die if you don’t!

                1. I’ll take belief in the Charity Fairy over your belief in the Government Fairy.

                  Clap harder! If you clap enough, the feds won’t screw up health care and make a hash of things this time! Unlike the last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, and…

                2. As predicted, you have know rational counter-argument to make against the central thesis of “George Ought to Help”. You find it acceptable to use violence/force, or just the threat there of, to transfer resources from one group of people to another.

                  You’re nothing but a thug. That is why you think no one will ever help someone else unless they are forced to. You’re a violent, cretinous thug.

                  1. *no

                3. Exactly. Rich people shouldn’t spend their own money on blow and hookers. Instead, gov’t workers should spend rich people’s money on those things, like what the SS did in Columbia! It’s called caring for others!

        3. That’s between the person and the hospital.

          Answer me this: when someone is hungry outside a restaurant, he should have to go hungry if his credit card isn’t approved?

          When someone is tired outside of a Ritz-Carlton, shouldn’t he get to sleep there if his credit card isn’t approved?

          When someone is in need of transportation outside of a GM dealership, shouldn’t he be allowed to drive off with a car if his credit card isn’t approved?

          When someone is not smart (I’m looking at you!) at the gates of a college, shouldn’t he get to enroll for classes if his credit card isn’t approved?

          When someone has worn out shoes and is outside a Bruno Maglia store, shouldn’t he get a new pair of loafers if his credit card isn’t approved?

          Do you want me to go on, asshole? I can continue to make you look more absurd.

          1. Answer me this: when someone is hungry outside a restaurant, he should have to go hungry if his credit card isn’t approved?

            That’s why we have food stamps and free school lunches if you can’t afford to feed yourself.

            When someone is tired outside of a Ritz-Carlton, shouldn’t he get to sleep there if his credit card isn’t approved?

            Public housing and Section 8.

            When someone is in need of transportation outside of a GM dealership, shouldn’t he be allowed to drive off with a car if his credit card isn’t approved?

            Public transit.

            So we should have public healthcare, too.

            1. You are aware that public transit costs money, right?

              You are aware that Section 8 is a subsidy, not free, right?

              You are aware that food stamps are not limitless, right?

              By your logic, we should have free everything for poor people because other free handouts exist. Where will it end, you stupid bastard?*

              *I’d call you a cunt, but I think you’re real name is Mary and I don’t want to summon Ken Shultz this early in the day.

              1. Yes. You know what else also costs even more money than having a form of public healthcare? Paying for emergency care for someone who has zero insurance, and no doubt a lifetime of health damage from never getting any preventive care because they couldn’t afford it.

                1. Yes. You know what else also costs even more money than having a form of public healthcare? Paying for emergency care for someone who has zero insurance, and no doubt a lifetime of health damage from never getting any preventive care because they couldn’t afford it.

                  Isn’t it strange that the people who complain about man-made global warming and overpopulation are the very same people who want to save every single life?

                2. Paying for emergency care for someone who has zero insurance, and no doubt a lifetime of health damage from never getting any preventive care because they couldn’t afford it.

                  Actually, those people tend to man up and die. You could learn from the fortitude they display in the face of adversity.

                  1. I like the cut of your jib.

                3. You keep using that word “insurance.” PPACA isn’t insurance. It’s subsidized care.

            2. Shit… why work? Just get your food and housing for free. Fuckin’ sweeeet.

            3. That’s why we have food stamps and free school lunches if you can’t afford to feed yourself.

              Not free.

              Public housing and Section 8.

              Not free.

              Public transit.

              Also not free.

            4. Well, Sloopy, I guess you lose. Obviously the answer to all the world’s problems is to institute government programs specifically designed to exacerbate those same problems. Why, before the government came along, no one could go to a church or any number of private organizations for charity. Those people were all left in gutters.

              1. Indeed, before the Progressive movement of the early 20th century, the streets were polluted with piles of dead orphans and horse shit.

                I know this because I saw it in a movie.

              2. Those people were all left in gutters.

                IIRC, that was the original reason for four lane streets. It was so people could stack the dead like cordwood and the rich people wouldn’t have to step on their bones on the sidewalks or roll over them with their carriages.

                Thank God we have become more progressive since those days.

                1. Man, I wish I’d lived back then. I could have made good money rendering orphans and grandmothers into soap for those rich folks.

                  1. Just wait. If Obama loses the election, we’ll be back to that point in January. At least that’s what they tell me at Salon and HuffPo.

                  2. I dunno, MS. Those malnourished sorts generally don’t render well. Of course, when your raw material is free, yield isn’t as much of an issue.

              3. Not to mention government magically ends the scarcity problem. Shit, wave the wand and the labor, time and capital needed to produce medicine, hospitals, medical equipment, etc. just magically appears.

                Damn, if progressives could just understand economics, they wouldn’t be progressives.

              4. Ah, yes. Who could forget the millions who starved to death, had no access to medical care, and were homeless and wasted away in the streets? Let us never forget!

                1. But enough about China and Russia.

        4. What does bleeding to death outside an ER have to do with obesity?

          1. Fat people use more soap bleed more? I dunno, man, I got nothin’.

          2. If the people are not obese, the rich people can more easily step over them to get into the ER? The fatties are a bit trickier.

            What do I win?

    4. I would bet your kidneys that the 42% figure is based on government BMI ranges. According to these ranges, I, having 5.5% body fat, am overweight. In reality I am relatively heavy for my height because muscle weighs more than fat.

      I would also note that government’s continual defining upward of federal poverty level relative to inflation and income does not mean more and more people are poor every year.

    5. Don’t worry. Once the broccoli mandate, fat taxes and “unhealthy” food taxes kick in, the problem will be solved.

      Of course, then we’ll have a costly food war with food gangs to deal with.

      Guess we’ll just have to build more prisons.

  9. “Do we care? Are we caring about that?”

    1. This looks somewhat…familiar. Like I saw it somewhere else today…

  10. Meanwhile, liberal Yale professor Akhil Reed Amar, writing at Slate, penned a condescending open letter to the justices where he explained what Verrilli “should have said.”

    Interesting that Amar’s open critique letter rests so very heavily on the Militia Acts of 1792, specifically authorized under the Militia Clause of the Constitution and criticized at the time as simultaneously cruel, ineffective and, as the War of 1812 showed, nearly fatal.

  11. Of course the current law (passed under that Communist, Ronald Reagan) currently mandates that emergency rooms must take everyone regardless of ability to pay. I guess the “libertarian” version of healthcare reform would be to repeal that law.

    Me? I’d like to find a more rational way to pay for it.

    1. Ending first dollar coverage and employer sponsored care would be a good place to start.

    2. Me? I’d like to find a more rational rationed way to pay for it.

      FIFY!

      1. Healthcare is already rationed. It’s just rationed in a really shitty way (paying than every country in the world for less than universal coverage with worse results).

        1. I can’t even read that sentence.

          And yes, it’s already rationed. Who do you blame that on?

        2. Hey, sloopy… is Richard also Hellenophile from the Greeks-setting-themselves-on-fire thread?

          Sure smells similar…

          1. If by “similar” you mean “like a steaming pile of dog shit”, then I’d have to agree.

            1. More like a vagina full of dog shit.

        3. Healthcare is already rationed.

          Yep. Everything is scarce, including the time needed to train people to provide medical care. There is always rationing.

          I advocate for price-rationing because it is self-sustaining; so long as people value health, they can get care.

          Does that mean that, right now, some people might be unable to afford care? Probably. But there’s more to life than the present, and not allowing for care to be profitable will ruin care long-term. I’m all for people helping one another pay for their bills; I’m not for one group of people forcing a second group of people to pay for the care of a third group of people.

          1. You know what else is rationed? The number of people allowed to attend medical schools. If the AMA, with the full support of the federal government, wouldn’t limit the number of people allowed to enroll in medical schools, out health care network would be much more competitive, and that would drive down priced dramatically. Too bad that fucking retarded bastard Richard can’t see where the problem lies: the government manipulated the market to the point that it’s fucked up already.

            1. Wholeheartedly agreed. Zoning laws are also a problem, as is the fact that existing hospitals are given a say in whether new care facilities can be built. Healthcare is an industry that has been incredibly distorted by government action.

              1. Yeah, healthcare reminds me of the protectionist rackets that are professional sports franchising. They get the city to pony up a big chunk of their infrastructure costs, the get huge tax breaks and they limit competition by keeping others from doing the same.

                The healthcare problem is an access problem. And the access is limited due to government protection of rent-seekers, credentialism and caps on med school enrollments and regulating the insurance companies out of offering plans people actually want to purchase. And the government is involved in every one of those things.

                1. Yes, the supply of providers and facilities is limited by government policies. And demand is inflated by government policies. This has predictable results. Obamacare doubles down on this approach.

                  1. Obamacare wasn’t designed to do anything other than make all healthcare problems much, much worse.

        4. Healthcare is already rationed.

          Only if you believe that everything except air is rationed.

        5. Healthcare is already rationed. It’s just rationed in a really shitty way (paying than every country in the world for less than universal coverage with worse results).

          To paraphrase a commenter on H&R from years ago:

          Jay Z has three ferraris and you have none. Are they “rationed”?

    3. Me? I’d like to find a more rational way to pay for it.

      Sure, if more rational = taking other people’s money.

      The “libertarian” version of healthcare reform would be to get rid of all laws that have anything to do with healthcare.

      1. Progressives aren’t about freedom, $parky. They’re about theft.

    4. “Me? I’d like to find a more rational way to pay for it.”

      Get a second job and donate 100% of the earnings. You’re not really imaginative. How sad for you and those around you.

  12. Honestly, you know who should be the angriest? Verrilli. I’d be mortified if I went to the most important case of my legal career and acted the fool like he did, while the opposing counsel ran rings around me and made me look like a chump. I’d be so pissed off at myself I’d be incoherent.

  13. Two things — one, SCOTUS isn’t overruling this. Oral arguments may have been encouraging, but I believe Kennedy will decide to trust the legislature’s self-restraint and sign on with the court’s leftists.

    Two, the individual mandate is hampered by having been constructed for political necessity. They could easily have structured it like a revenue-generating Pigovian tax, just like they do for cigarettes and gasoline (which either discourages consumption or buys poor kids health care, depending on who you ask). I’m not surprised that Verrill seemed uncomfortable defending a legal hack. I noticed the article writer couldn’t elucidate a limiting principle, either.

    1. I noticed the article writer couldn’t elucidate a limiting principle, either.

      You may need to hop on over to the archives page on Obamacare. It lists plenty of reasons.

      1. He’s talking about the article quoted in this post.

  14. We already have Medicaid..

  15. “We live in a mixed economy”

    Yeah, liberals, you keep repeating that shit… but you only ever want to add more socialism – never *less* socialism.

    And you wonder why shit never gets any better…

  16. Sweet motherfuckery-doo, guys. Just ignore it.

    1. Is a “motherfuckery-doo” a didgeridoo used in a certain way in an incest-fantasy porn?

      1. Never let a girl blow air into your urethra. Just take my word on this.

        1. Duly noted.

          1. Or a guy. That would be just as bad, probably.

        2. You should compile your advice into a self-help book for the terminally deranged. I’m in for a pre-order.

          1. Put it on Kindle, and I’m in.

        3. Never let a girl blow air into your urethra. Just take my word on this.

          What about a woman?

  17. Has anyone heard this Solicitor General Donald Verrilli talk?

    Has anyone heard this guy represent the Justice Department on this matter?

    I wouldn’t let this guy represent me in a parking ticket matter. I wouldn’t let this guy grieve my local property taxes. He has lousy stage-presence in court.

    This Obama sure knows how to pick crappy people.

    1. He’s the perfect man to defend the healthcare law.

      1. I’m actually for the healthcare law.

        But I must say, I hope that if I ever go to court, my counterparty is represented by him.

        1. Competent arguments beget competent litigators. In my opinion, Verilli did the best he could with the material he had.

  18. Sounds like that dude needs to have a seat right over there lol.

    http://www.Better-Privacy.tk

  19. It’s hard work to defense the indefensible. Especially when your client (Barack Obama) insist on ramming through this legislation through the most contorted language and maneuver possible.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.