Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 11:24 AM ET, 02/ 2/2011

Hatch vs. Fried

By Ezra Klein

For all that I appreciate Congress's decision to webcast committee hearings, actually watching them can be a depressing experience. After hours of persuasive expert testimony this morning, I saw no evidence that any senator, from either party, had changed positions even a little. Perhaps the most telling moment came when Utah's Orrin Hatch scolded Charles Fried, a Harvard law professor who served as Ronald Reagan's solicitor general and considers the mandate easily constitutional, for the quality of his arguments.

The primary flaw Hatch pointed out in Fried's thinking was that, well, Hatch disagreed with it. Despite his preexisting respect for the quality of Fried's legal thinking, the fact that Fried's position differed from Hatch's had left Hatch "shocked" at Fried, not more skeptical of his own thinking. Motivated skepticism in action, I guess.

By Ezra Klein  | February 2, 2011; 11:24 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Appreciating Congress's Web savvy
Next: Will health care go to the Supreme Court?

Comments

I usually pose it as "poach vs fried" and prefer poach in most cases

Posted by: bdballard | February 2, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

There was a smart writer for the Post who talked about how much of the political theater in DC is not on the level. Maybe you could talk to him in the break room one day...

Posted by: NicholasBeaudrot | February 2, 2011 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm with bdballard. I don't think I would eat a hatched egg.

Posted by: HerooftheBeach | February 2, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I'm disappointed in the points made by Sen. Max BAWK-us.

(OK, that was bad.)

Posted by: dpurp | February 2, 2011 7:44 PM | Report abuse

GOP addicted to being against Obama. Obama should say right now, I am for a repeal today, but today only. they will quickly jump to the other side and oppose him and filibuster it. this is silly. it is over. Let the courts decide this, but they too like Vinson suffer from the same disease of being against Obama. Vinson should retire his decision is so bad.
Just explain someone:
The insurance companies are for the law.
The drug companies are for the law.
Who is the GOP trying to prove something to? Not the people, the GOP is not for the people. THis is BS theater; they know it, I know it.

Posted by: isometruman1 | February 3, 2011 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company