Political Animal


March 27, 2012 5:25 PM Day’s End and Night Watch

By Ed Kilgore

Quite a day thanks to the Supremes, who will be in our thoughts for the next three months or so while they put together their ruling on ObamaCare.

* Jon Cohn’s account of today’s Supreme Court oral arguments has the perfect headline: “Well, That Could Have Gone Better.”

* Lead homicide investigator in Trayvon Martin case wanted to file manslaughter charges against George Zimmerman but was overruled by prosecutors. Guess the facts exonerating Zimmerman weren’t as obvious as we’ve been recently led to believe, eh?

* Geraldo Rivera sorta kinda apologizes for “hoodie” ruminations about Trayvon Martin. I think his underlying message is: “I forget sometimes how influential I am.”

* At College Guide, Daniel Luzer discusses the high likelihood of civil suits against Penn State in Sandusky scandal, and tells us about Conservative Teen magazine.

* EPA poised to issue regulations on emissions of greenhouse gases by coal plants. Expect a big conservative shriek-a-ganza when this becomes official.

* Big financial fraud lawsuit filed against evangelical broadcasting network TBN. Juiciest detail involves 100k mobile home for Crouch family’s dogs.

And in more purely non-political news:

* The case for not watching Hunger Games.

Tonight I’ll consume the rest of the buzz out there about the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, getting ready for tomorrow’s closer.


Ed Kilgore is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. He is managing editor for The Democratic Strategist and a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Find him on Twitter: @ed_kilgore.


  • exlibra on March 27, 2012 5:57 PM:

    Juiciest detail involves 100k mobile home for Crouch family’s dogs. -- Ed Kilgore

    What? Did you want them to travel strapped to the roof of a station wagon?

  • ComradeAnon on March 27, 2012 6:09 PM:

    exlibra-one the best comments ever.

  • bdop4 on March 27, 2012 7:16 PM:

    Note to Geraldo: You're not "influential." You're just a dick with media exposure.

  • j on March 27, 2012 7:19 PM:

    So - to those who say it is against their constitutional
    rights to be required to pay for health care, it it against my constitutional rights to be asked to pay extra
    to care for them?

  • bigtuna on March 27, 2012 8:06 PM:

    I'll probably chime in on a post tomorrow, but the questions from the Bush appointees were truly appalling. I know a bit about economics, a little about health care, and care about a democratic society in which we care for fellow humans. On all three counts, the NPR recordings of the Scalia, Kennedy, and Roberts questions clearly show that they do not understand anything about these three topics.

    They were so far out of the loop it was tragic.

  • Patrick star on March 27, 2012 9:14 PM:

    Conservative Teen magazine? Sounds like something out of National Lampoon! I mean, seriously, WTF??!!! You gotta be kidding me!

  • Joe Friday on March 27, 2012 9:43 PM:

    "Lead homicide investigator in Trayvon Martin case wanted to file manslaughter charges against George Zimmerman but was overruled by prosecutors."

    Oh, now that's gonna look just wonderful.

  • gus on March 27, 2012 9:56 PM:

    so, does Florida often screw over young black males with their justice system?

    As for the ACA case: I just read on Drum’s blog that people expected this to possibly be a 7-2 split. I was told that by some people but I found that incredible. The reason someone told me is because they don’t want it to look political. I guess that is kind of an easy set up for a joke analogy.

    But, I must admit that ever since I heard they were taking on the case that I expected a possible 5-4 split, upholding it or striking it down. Anything else would be ridiculous.

    The only other possibility would be they all vote to strike it down. That would be less shocking than a 7-2 vote.

  • Still Fighting the Same Ole Battles on March 27, 2012 11:20 PM:

    "prepared to strike down the individual mandate, on the grounds that it unfairly compels individuals into a form of commerce, buying insurance, they would not do on their own"?

    I realize these are state level laws utilizing national companies, but aren't we mandated to have auto insurance because we MIGHT be in a car wreck and aren't some areas higher than others because of the number of wrecks, and house insurance, aren't we mandated to have house insurance on bank financed homes to protect their investment?

    All the "government shouldn't" and "protect the citizen" stuff isn't making sense to me after paying those bills. If the health care industry could make health care affordable to me, I'd have it. If Obamacare can aide with that, what is the problem?

    Would there be any issue if the Republican leadership weren't bought by their rich co-owners and required by them to make problems while people are dying without health insurance. Isn't the real problem the Republicans saying "make 'em wait while we fight this pointless battle"?

  • j on March 28, 2012 8:42 AM:

    Carville says, and I agree with him that if they strike down health care, with rising costs etc, the Republicans will now own health care in this country.
    I would say to them - be careful what you wish for.

  • Sgt. Gym Bunny on March 28, 2012 8:51 AM:

    @bdop4: He should now be charged with indecent exposure...

  • robert mcclellan on March 28, 2012 9:50 AM:

    The Conservative Teen has been taken down temporarily; I suspect that articles like “Ronald Regan was the first black president” by Ron Regan didn’t pass the hilarity test.

  • T2 on March 28, 2012 10:21 AM:

    "Republicans will now own health care in this country" - they already do. That's why they want to privatize Medicare. And that's why the base parts of ACA, including the mandate, GOP ideas in the first place. They only reason they now oppose all those money making ideas is because their world turned upside down when a black guy got elected president. I bet Obama even wears a hoodie from time to time.

  • Dredd on March 28, 2012 10:49 AM:

    Not many people know that the federal judiciary is more right-wing than at any time since ~1937.