Tweet
Tagg Romney’s dad spent a bunch of Tagg’s inheritance on magic underwear beans and all he got was ridicule at the Supreme Court:
The Court heard oral argument today in Davis v. FEC, the case that asks whether the so-called Millionaires’ Amendment of the McCain–Feingold law unconstitutionally burdens the free-speech rights of self-financing candidates for office. I’ll have a piece on the case up on the website in a little bit, but for now I’ll just call your attention to this unfortunate swipe (pdf) that plaintiff’s counsel Andrew Herman took at the former governor of Massachusetts:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I think–I mean, obviously you’re correct that this system benefits incumbents, but it benefits your client in a particular way as well. The parties are certainly interested in candidates who will fund themselves because that presents less strain on the party’s resources.
MR. HERMAN: Mr. Chief Justice, they are interested in those candidates only inasmuch as they get elected. The moment that the public turns on them, they won’t be interested. And certainly the public was not particularly interested in Mitt Romney, who spent a significant amount of money on his own behalf, and many other spectacular flameouts.
(Laughter.)
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I’m not sure we need characterizations of the political candidates–
(Laughter.)
MR. HERMAN: I apologize.
First the government breaks up the filming of Girls Gone Mild at Mormon Spring Break HQ, and now this. It’s hard out there for an LDS….
6 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
RSS/XML Feed
Hmmmm. (Laughter.), eh? We need a more complete transcript from the Supremos reporter. Are we talking about a polite titter, as at a keen witticism? Or was it derisive, mocking hooting, with hands waved in the air and finger pointing at the rediculousness of the Mittster’s flushing away of millions in his pointless crusade? I’m hoping for the second one. Also, when Mr. Herman said, “I apologize,” did he say it soberly, as befits a lapse in decorum in this great court, or was it with a wide grin on his face and a wink at the Chief Justice? An informed citizenry needs to know.
(That should read Concurring with VonZeppelin.)
In law school, I felt that transcripts of oral arguments should include stage directions as well. For instance, did Chief Justice Roberts deliver his reply sternly, or, perhaps, wryly? That these distinctions are lost to posterity does a great disservice to history.
Heard this on NPR. Wasn’t that just the most amazing thing? Having everybody at the fricking supreme court bust a gut because you’re such a loser? Ouch.
Dude, so not fair tying the Romneys to the Texas rape camp. That’d be like tying me, a let-the-already-accepted-gay-clergy-marry-already Lutheran to that nutbar Michelle Bachmann and her wacktacular Wisconsin Synod.
Or more likely, one of those weird little spinoff synods in Marry Your Cousin, MO.
Hey! Three fabulous words I’ve never seen together before: “wacktacular Wisconsin Synod”! That’s a keeper!
But let’s not forget Rudy Giuliani when we mention “marrying cousins.” His first wife was a second cousin.
Gee, I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts would have stepped in if it were Hillary or Barack being “characterized”. Well, no, I didn’t really wonder.